DDL - UMR 5596
ISH - Bat C
14 avenue Berthelot
69007 Lyon
Tél : 04 72 72 64 12
Fax : 04 72 72 65 90


Previous Month January 2019 Previous Month
31 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31 1 2 3

  More than one event
 You are here : Home /  Events / Calendar

ven. 11/01/2019 Séminaire DTT - Atelier Morphosyntaxe

Léa Mouton (DDL)
" Le système des classificateurs du hmong noir et leur fonctions : analyses préliminaires "

Le but de cette présentation est de donner un apperçu de mes premières analyses de l’un des mécanismes de classification nominale présent en hmong noir (langue hmong-mien parlée au Vietnam), à savoir le système des classificateurs. La majorité des études sur les classificateurs se sont concentrées sur les systèmes à classificateurs dit numéraux et leurs fonctions les plus connues : celles de classification et d’individualisation. Pourtant, les classificateurs du hmong noir peuvent remplir une autre fonction. Dans cette présentation je tenterai de répondre à la question très générale de l’utilité de ce système de classification. En d’autres termes « à quoi servent ces marqueurs de classification nominale rencontrés dans cette langue ? » Je commencerai par présenter l’inventaire des classificateurs du hmong noir et les relations sémantiques qu’ils entretiennent avec les noms qu’ils classifient. L’étude de leurs environnements morphosyntaxiques montre qu’il existe trois sous-types de classificateurs dans cette langue : les classificateurs à emploi numéral, à emploi nominal et à emploi déictique. Je tenterai alors de montrer que chaque type morphosyntaxique relevé encode une fonction particulière : outre leur fonction d’identification et d’individualisation, les classificateurs vont aussi remplir une fonction référentielle permettant alors de rendre spécifique le référent désigné par le nom.

Contact... More information…

lun. 14/01/2019 Réunion Interne
Réunion de l'Axe DTT
14h - 16h
ISH - Salle E. Rivet

mar. 22/01/2019 atelier Histoire et Ecologie des Langues: Thiago Chacon (University of Brazilia/Collegium de Lyon): "Chapters in the prehistory of Tukanoan languages"
ISH, salle Ennat Léger

In this talk I will explore key points in the pre-history of Tukanoan languages within the context of Northwest Amazonia, one of the linguistically most diverse regions of the world where Tukanoan and Arawakan languages play a central role. I will address each of these points as assemblages of problems that scholars usually face when dealing with interdisciplinary issues related to linguistic, cultural and population history. After a general background on Northwest Amazonia linguistic ecology and the state of the art of Tukanoan family comparative studies, I will discuss the following chapters in Tukanoan pre-history:

  • 1- Urheimat, age and initial diversification
  • 2- Linguistic statigraphy and long-term history of language contact
  • 3- Cultural history seen from the reconstruction and changes in the lexicon
  • 4- The emergence of linguistic exogamy and the Vaupes linguistic area
  • 5- Colonial and post-colonial effects on Tukanoan linguistic ecology

jeu. 24/01/2019 Réunion Interne
Réunion inter-axes des statutaires DDL - préparation évaluation HCERES
MSH, salle André Frossard

jeu. 24/01/2019 Réunion Interne
Réunion Team building
MSH, cafétéria (RdC)

ven. 25/01/2019 Séminaire DTT
The new typology of constituency and convergence
ISH - salle André Frossard

Adam J.R. Tallman (DDL)
with Dennis Wylie, Anthony C. Woodbury, Gladys Camacho Rios, Hiroto Uchihara, Kelsey Neely, Natalia Bermudez, Ambrocio Gutierrez, Cristian Juarez, Willem de Reuse, Patience Epps, Andrés Salanova, Eric Adell, Michael Everdell, Eric Campbell, Javier Carol

In this talk we discuss some foundational problems in the cross-linguistic comparison of wordhood and constituency. We present a solution to these problems and apply them to the study of 14 languages of the America (Chácobo (Pano), Yaminawa (Pano), Hup (Naduhup), Mebengokre (Ge), Chatino (Oto-Manguean), Quechua (Quechua), Mocoví (Guaicuruan), Zapotec (Oto-Manguean), Central Alaskan Yupik (Yupik-Inuit-Unangan), Apache (Na-Dene Athabaskan), Cherokee (Iroquioan), Naso (Chibchan), Chajul Ixil (Mayan), Southeastern Tepehuan (Uto-Aztecan), Chorote (Matacoan)). We argue for a new methodology that rests on rejection of a number of assumptions (often implicit) in descriptive and typological work: (i) the distinction between morphological and syntactic positions (ii) the distinction between morphosyntactic and phonological words; (iii) the distinction between wordhood and phrasehood diagnostics. Instead, we propose that an approach to cross-linguistic comparison of constituency that involves the systematic application of constituency diagnostics coded in a typological database that does not presuppose these distinctions. Languages are compared in terms of how many levels emerge out of the application of the diagnostics, the convergences between diagnostics, and the robustness of these convergences given the parameters of their application. We present a new set of terminology for describing sentence structure and comparing the results of constituency tests that we refer to as “flat structures” (based on a critical engagement and synthesis of the morphological and syntactic representations found in and Bickel and Zúñiga (2017) and Culicover and Jackendoff (2005)).

One of the most serious critiques of the investigation of constituency is methodological opportunism (e.g. Croft 2001; Croft 2010; Haspelmath 2011). Rather than lapsing into one of the two extremes of categorial universalism or categorial particularism (e.g. Haspelmath 2010), we deal with this problem by positing a novel concept referred to as the probability of chance convergence. This refers to the likelihood that two or more constituency diagnostics could have converged around the same result by chance given the number of tests applied and the morphosyntactic positions in the language. We also show how a metric of the probability of chance convergence can be computed. We argue that this methodology takes important steps towards overcoming language-internal and cross-linguistic methodological opportunism.

Our study has the following results:

• Languages vary in terms of whether and the extent to which a word constituent is motivated. This finding calls into question the whole framing of the debate on lexicalism (Marantz 1997; Wechsler 2005; Bruening 2018; Müller 2018) and wordhood generally (Blevins 2016; Geertzen et al. 2016).

• The distinction between grammatical and phonological word is not motivated in any language. This finding undermines some basic premises of certain formulations of Basic Linguistic Theory (e.g. Dixon 2010 and generative theories of phonological constituency such as prosodic phonology (Nespor & Vogel 1986).

We discuss other findings from this study and the future research that they could inspire. We also discuss the relevance of these findings for linguistic description.


Bickel, Balthasar, and Fernando Zuñiga. 2017. "The 'word' in polysynthetic languages: phonological and syntactic challenges." In The Oxford Handbook of Polysynthesis, edited by Michael Fortascue, Marianne Mithun and Nichols Evans, 158-186. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bickel, Balthasar, Kristine A. Hildebrandt, and René Schiering. 2009. "The distribution of phonological word domains: A probabilistic typology." In Phonological Domains: Universals and Deviations, edited by Janet Grijzenhout and Kabak Baris, 47-75. De Gruyter Mouton.

Blevins, James P. 2006. "Word-based morphology." Journal of Linguistics 42 (3): 531-573.

Blevins, James P. 2016. Word and Paradigm Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bresnan, Joan, and Sam A. McHombo. 1995. "The Lexical Integrity Principle: Evidence from Bantu." Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 13 (2): 181-254.

Bruening, Benjamin. 2018. "The lexicalist hypothesis: Both wrong and superfluous." Language 94 (1): 1-42. Croft, William. 2010. "Radical Construction Grammar." In The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, edited by Thomas Hoffman and Graeme Trousdale, 211-232. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

—. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Croft, William. 2010. "Ten unwarranted assumptions in syntactic argumentation." In Language Usage and Language Structure, edited by Kasper Boye and Elisabeth Engberg-Pedersen, 313-350. Mouton de Gruyter.

Culicover, Peter W., and Ray Jackendoff. 2005. Simpler Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dixon, R.M.W, and Alexandra Y Aikhenvald. 2002. "Word: a typological framework." In Word: A cross-linguistic typology, edited by R.M.W. Dixon and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, 1-34. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dixon, R.M.W. 2010. Basic Linguistic Theory, Vol.2: Grammatical Topics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dryer, Matthew. 2017. The myth of grammatical (morphosyntactic) words. ms.

Geertzen, Jeroen, James P Blevins, and Petar Milin. 2016. "The informativeness of linguistic unit bondaries." Italian Journal of Linguistics 28 (2): 1-24.

Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz. 1993. "Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection." In The view from building 20, edited by Ken Halle and S.J. Keyser, 111-176. MIT Press.

Haspelmath, Martin. 2010. "Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies." Language 86 (3): 663-687.

Haspelmath, Martin. 2011. "The indeterminacy of word segmentation and the nature of morphology and syntax." Folia Linguistica (Mouton de Gruyter - Societas Linguistica Europaea) 45 (1): 31-80.

Marantz, Alec. 1997. "No Escape from Syntax: Don't Try Morphological Analysis in the Pricavy of Your Own Lexicon." U Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 4 (2): 201-225.

Müller, Stefan. 2018. "The end of Lexicalism as we know it?" Language 94 (1): e54-e66.

Nespor, Marina, and Irene Vogel. 1986. Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.

Schiering, René, Balthsar Bickel, and Kristine A. Hildebrandt. 2010. "The prosodic word is not unviersal, but emergent." Journal of Linguistics 46 (03): 657-709.

Wechsler, Stephen. 2008. "Dualist Syntax." Edited by Stefan Müller. Proceedings of the HPSG08 Conference. NICT, Keihanna, Japan: CSLI Publications. http://csli-publications.stanford.edu/.


ven. 01/02/2019 Séminaire DTT - Atelier Morphosyntaxe

Denis Bertet (DDL)
"One inflectional paradigm, two functional dimensions: agreement for gender vs agreement for social deixis in Tikuna (isolate, Western Amazon)"

Tikuna (isolate, Western Amazon) displays a system of five nominal agreement classes. Agreement for class, an obligatory and pervasive feature, is classically realized through the inflection of several adnominal and pronominal elements, both within the NP and on the predicative head. But what is it that determines which agreement class a given noun is assigned to in discourse? A few nouns, because they always trigger agreement for the same class, give the misleading impression of an Indo-European-like lexical gender system. Most nouns, however, disprove this hypothesis by showing the ability to trigger agreement for several of the five classes in discourse. A systematic examination of the array of agreement alternatives exhibited by a sample of nouns will show that the five agreement classes, although homogeneously realized from a morphosyntactic perspective, are functionally heterogeneous. While three of them do correspond to genuine lexical genders, the other two specify the referent for social deixis, a pragmatic dimension (familiarity vs unfamiliarity) orthogonal to gender. In discourse, a noun may alternatively trigger agreement according to its lexical gender (pragmatically unmarked option) or according to the desired social deixis effect (in which case gender is neutralized).

Contact... More information…

ASLAN -  Université de Lyon -  CNRS -  Université Lumière Lyon 2 -  MSH-LSE -  IXXI -  DDL :  Contact |  Terms of use |