New
New interdisciplinary paper on interaction
Beyond Single-Mindedness: A Figure-Ground Reversal for the Cognitive Sciences. (2023) (with Mark Dingemanse and many others) Cognitive Science 47, e13230
AbstractA fundamental fact about human minds is that they are never truly alone: all minds are steeped insituated interaction. That social interaction matters is recognized by any experimentalist who seeksto exclude its influence by studying individuals in isolation. On this view, interaction complicatescognition. Here, we explore the more radical stance that interaction co-constitutes cognition: that webenefit from looking beyond single minds toward cognition as a process involving interacting minds.All around the cognitive sciences, there are approaches that put interaction center stage. Their diverseand pluralistic origins may obscure the fact that collectively, they harbor insights and methods that canrespecify foundational assumptions and fuel novel interdisciplinary work. What might the cognitivesciences gain from stronger interactional foundations? This represents, we believe, one of the keyquestions for the future. Writing as a transdisciplinary collective assembled from across the classiccognitive science hexagon and beyond, we highlight the opportunity for a figure-ground reversal thatputs interaction at the heart of cognition. The interactive stance is a way of seeing that deserves to be akey part of the conceptual toolkit of cognitive scientists.
New monograph
The grammar of interactional language. Cambridge University PressTraditional grammar and current theoretical approaches towards modelling grammatical knowledge ignore language in interaction: that is, words such as huh, eh, yup or yessssss. This groundbreaking book addresses this gap by providing the first in-depth overview of approaches towards interactional language across different frameworks and linguistic sub-disciplines. Based on the insights that emerge, a formal framework is developed to discover and compare language in interaction across different languages: the interactional spine hypothesis. Two case-studies are presented: confirmationals (such as eh and huh) and response markers (such as yes and no), both of which show evidence for systematic grammatical knowledge. Assuming that language in interaction is regulated by grammatical knowledge sheds new light on old questions concerning the relation between language and thought and the relation between language and communication. It is essential reading for anyone interested in the relation between language, cognition and social interaction.
New talk on Self-talk
Newly published:
Sichel, I. & M. Wiltschko. 2021. The logic of Person markedness: Evidence from pronominal competition Language 97. 42-71.
We argue that the use of a d-pronoun in German and Hebrew when a personal pronoun could also have been used gives rise to an implicature that the d-pronoun is associated with [-person] deriving a negative evaluation of the referent. We conclue that PERSON is a contentful category which marks discourse participation. [pre-publication version]
New manuscripts
Martina Wiltschko. Under review. Do eyes make words? Do words see them? The grammar of multi-modal interaction. An analysis is proposed for the form-meaning pairing in a minimal summons-answer adjacency pair: a prolonged stare answered by what. It is argued that the stare constitutes a genuine initiation move which licenses the use of what. It is shown that this use of what is restricted to answer initiation moves and cannot be used to react to any kind of situation. It is further shown that the interpretation of what in this context does not derive from ellipsis of a full sentence (i.e., What are. you looking at?). It is shown that the interpretation of what and the stare can straightforwardly be explained if it is assumed that these forms associate with a preconfigured structure which adds meaning to isolated units of language. The special role of eye-gaze is discussed: unlike words, which cannot be used outside of language, eye-gaze always has a dual function: to observe and to interact
Martina Wiltschko. Under review. Language is for thought and communication.My argument is based on the fact that the universal spine regulates not only propositional language but also interactional language. If interaction is built into languag structure, it must be the case that language is "designed" both for thinking and for communication.
Martina Wiltschko (Under review). Knowledge is basic. Evidence from linguistic markedness. [Ms. available upon request]
We present evidence from a range of linguistic phenomena that the most unmarked types ofclauses are used to assert a speaker’s knowledge about the actual world. This evidence includespropositional attitude verbs, modality, clause-typing, mood, evidentiality, and discourseparticles. While it is not the case that knowledge cannot be marked as such, we show that it neednot be linguistically marked. This invites the conclusion that knowledge is also the most basicmental representation, thus contributing to a long-standing philosophical debate regarding thenature of knowledge.
Brittany McDonald, Elizabeth Ritter & Martina Wiltschko (under review) Pronouns and paranouns. A new pronominal typology. [ms. available upon request]
In Japanese the forms typically referred to as pronouns have a very different distribution from pronouns in languages such as French and German. For this reason, Japanese pronouns are sometimes characterized as noun-like, though they do not have the same distribution as nouns. The core of this paper is devoted to developing an analysis that captures this conundrum. Specifically, we argue that the so-called pronouns in Japanese are neither nouns nor pronouns; rather they belong to another category of nominals, which we call paranouns. We argue that while pronouns occupy the functional struture of nominal constituents, paranouns occupy the interactional structure. We extend the analysis to formality distinctions in pronominal systems, arguing that formal pronouns are recycled into the interactional structure.
Johannes Heim & Martina Wiltschko. Timing of Belief as a Key to Cross-Linguistic Variation in Tag Questions. To appear in: Special issue of Linguistic Vanquard: Non-canonical questions from a comparative perspective, co-edited by Andreas Trotzke & Anna Czypionka.
Ritter, E. & M. Wiltschko (2020) Interacting with vocatives! Proceedings of the CLA 2020
Ritter, E. & M. Wiltschko. (2021) The syntax of formality. Universals and Variation. Proceedings fo the CLA 2019 Colasanti V. & M. Wiltschko (2021) Spatial and discourse deixis and the speech act structure of nominals. Proceedings of the CLA 2019 Barrie, M., A. Li, M. Wiltschko; J.U.Park (2021). In defence of DP (or KP). Linguistic Research. 38(2): 207-238 Bruening et al. (2018) present a reanalysis of the DP Hypothesis, arguing that nominal phrases are NPs and that functional elements such as number and determiners appear in the specifier of NP. We take issue with a number of their claims, arguing that the DP Hypothesis (re-named here as the DP/KP Hypothesis) is in fact not in jeopardy. We review their discussion and present our counter arguments. First, we address their discussion of the development of the DP Hypothesis, and include several critical references they did not include in their overview. Their claim that the DP Hypothesis largely rests on an architectural parallel with the extended verbal projection ignore a large body of literature in which morphological, syntactic, and semantic evidence is adduced for an articulated nominal structure. They discuss several lines of evidence based on selection in support of their claim that nominal phrases are headed by N. We show that their claims fail for empirical and theoretical reasons. Specifically, once the assumption of another layer of structure above DP (namely KP) is acknowledged, their arguments against the functional architecture in nominal phrases no longer hold. We conclude that the DP/KP Hypothesis is still the best explanation for the cross-linguistic facts on nominal phrases.
Johannes Heim & Martina Wiltschko. Timing of Belief as a Key to Cross-Linguistic Variation in Tag Questions. To appear in: Special issue of Linguistic Vanquard: Non-canonical questions from a comparative perspective, co-edited by Andreas Trotzke & Anna Czypionka.
Ritter, E. & M. Wiltschko (2020) Interacting with vocatives! Proceedings of the CLA 2020
Ritter, E. & M. Wiltschko. (2021) The syntax of formality. Universals and Variation. Proceedings fo the CLA 2019 Colasanti V. & M. Wiltschko (2021) Spatial and discourse deixis and the speech act structure of nominals. Proceedings of the CLA 2019 Barrie, M., A. Li, M. Wiltschko; J.U.Park (2021). In defence of DP (or KP). Linguistic Research. 38(2): 207-238 Bruening et al. (2018) present a reanalysis of the DP Hypothesis, arguing that nominal phrases are NPs and that functional elements such as number and determiners appear in the specifier of NP. We take issue with a number of their claims, arguing that the DP Hypothesis (re-named here as the DP/KP Hypothesis) is in fact not in jeopardy. We review their discussion and present our counter arguments. First, we address their discussion of the development of the DP Hypothesis, and include several critical references they did not include in their overview. Their claim that the DP Hypothesis largely rests on an architectural parallel with the extended verbal projection ignore a large body of literature in which morphological, syntactic, and semantic evidence is adduced for an articulated nominal structure. They discuss several lines of evidence based on selection in support of their claim that nominal phrases are headed by N. We show that their claims fail for empirical and theoretical reasons. Specifically, once the assumption of another layer of structure above DP (namely KP) is acknowledged, their arguments against the functional architecture in nominal phrases no longer hold. We conclude that the DP/KP Hypothesis is still the best explanation for the cross-linguistic facts on nominal phrases.
Upcoming talks
Recent talks
- The significance of interactional language. Workshop on the Syntactic Representation of Speech act Aspects (SRSA), Venice, Italy, December 5th 2022.
- What is plural? Keynote speaker at the Workshop on Flexible and Multiple Plural Marking in Language Contact and Creolization: Social and Situational Correlates. Leibniz Zentrum Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft (ZAS) Berlin, Germany. November 27-28, 2022.
- The relation between language and emotion. The view from grammar. School of Linguistic, Speech and Communication Sciences, Trinity College Dublin. November 9, 2022.
- The role of interactional language in human-machine interactions. What can we learn from mindless interactants? Colloquium, UPF. November 3, 2022.
- Above and beyond the DP. Invited talk at the Workshop on partition and individuation in Germanic and Slavic. Institute of linguistics, University of Stuttgart, June 15-17 2022.
- The spine grows inwards not upwards. Colloquium, UPF. June 13 2022.
- Where is semantics. Keynote speaker, Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), COLMEX / UNAM, Mexico City. June 8-10, 2022
- The grammar of self-talk. What different modes of talking reveal about the language faculty. Colloquium, Cambridge Linguistics Forum (CLF), University of Cambridge. May 29th 2022
- Language is for thought and communication. Evidence from self-talk. Colloquium, Trinity College, Dublin, April 13th 2022
- Self-talk as a window into the syntax of speech acts. SPAGAD lecture series, ZAS, Berlin, April 1st 2022
- Nominal interactional structure beyond “beyond pronouns”. CONSOLE Nantes, January 29th 2022