New papers
Unpublished manuscripts
Generative Interactions: No change no gain
This is a paper which was comissioned for the Journal of Italian Linguistics. It is one of a series of comments on a paper by Cristiano Chesi entitled: Is it the end of (generative) linguistics as we know it?.
This is the abstract of the paper (which is expected to be published this summer)
Chesi argues that generative linguists deserve Piantadosi's dismissal of the Chomskyan approach because of what he considers the generativists original sin: being content with incomplete pseudo-formalizations and data fragment explanations. This criticism is based on a narrow perspective on generativism. Here I outline my own (broader) perspective and the questions I ask, all inspired by core generative ideas. The discussion evolves around three areas: i) language variation; ii) interactional language; and iii) language acquisition. I argue that very large language models are not suitable to replace the theoretical assumptions I hold to explore these areas of research. Some of the assumptions I hold are not consistent with a narrow perspective on generativism a la Chesi, and one might conclude that this reflects his view that it is "the end of generativism as we know it". However, I invite a different conclusion: they simply reflect change. And just as change in language is a sign that the language is alive and spoken, so is change in a theoretical framework a sign that it is alive and used.
Recently Published
The grammar of self-talk. What different modes of talking reveal about language
Self-talk has played an important role in theorizing about the function of language in the psychological and philosophical literature. Linguistic investigations of self-talk, however, are scarce. In this paper, I argue that there are several modes of self-talk including (i) thinking out loud, which is characterized by the absence of an addressee and (ii) having a conversation with oneself, which is characterized by the presence of a grammatically represented addressee role. In the latter, the person engaged in self-talk may hold the role of the speaker or the addressee. Thus, the grammatical restrictions on self-talk serve as a hitherto underexplored window into the grammatical representation of speaker and addressee roles.
Wiltschko, Martina. "The grammar of self-talk. What different modes of talking reveal about language" Theoretical Linguistics, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2024-2024
Emotions do not enter grammar because they are constructed (by grammar)
I finally finished this paper on the relation between language and emotions. The core idea I pursue here is that functional categories are (universally) not dedicated to the expression of emotions because emotions are constructed. To make this claim, I had to immerse myself into the fascinating scholarship of the affective sciences and I learned (once again) that we should not trust our intuitive understanding of anything, including what emotions are. And in the course of this research, I found myself surprised by the idea that emerged: the same system that is responsible for constructing language (call it grammar) may just be responsible for constructing emotions.
The paper was recently published (completely open access) as a discussion paper in the online journal Language under Discussion. So maybe you feel inclined to write a comment or reply!
Wiltschko, M. (2024). Emotions do not enter grammar because they are constructed (by grammar). Language Under Discussion, 7(1), 1–62. https://doi.org/10.31885/lud.7.1.261
Is grammar affected in Schizophrenia.
A short reply to a recent paper by Zhang et al. that argues that grammar is affected in Schizophrenia. While this may well be, the criteria they use do not support this conclusion.
Wiltschko Martina (2024). Is grammar affected in Schizophrenia? Psychiatry Research. Jul 2;339:116061. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2024.116061. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 38968919.
The meaning of what
A short paper on a use of what that does not question a propositional argument, as in a scenario when someone is staring at you and you utter What? I show that this use of what cannot be analyzed as an elliptical question. And I argue that it serves as an interactional question in that it questions an initiation move.
I wrote this paper for a Festscrhift for Hotze Rullmann.
The meaning of what. In M. Ryan Bochnak, Eva Csipak, Lisa Matthewson, Marcin Morzycki and Daniel K.E. Reisinger, eds. The title of this volume is shorter than its contributions are allowed to be: Papers in honour of Hotze Rullmann (UBC Occasional Papers in Linguistics 9). Vancouver: University of British Columbia.
A new argument for linguistic determinants of human thought.
The fact that grammatical categories (i.e., PERSON or TENSE), are necessary to construct sentences and define the content of the thought expressed suggests that thought cannot be independent of language. This is because grammatical categories are strictly grammatical, with not non-grammatical analogue.
Hinzen, W., Martin, T. & Wiltschko, M. A new argument for linguistic determinants of human thought. Linguist and Philos (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-024-09414-8
The Syntax of Talking Heads
In this paper, I explore two discourse markers of Upper Austrian German: ma indicates surprise, while geh indicates a discrepancy between speaker and addresee. I argue that they are interactional pro-forms (ProGroundP) which mark a reaction to the speaker's or the addresee's current epistemic state. This extends the typology of proforms I have been working on for decades now.
Wiltschko, M. 2024. The syntax of talking heads, Journal of Pragmatics, Volume 232: 182-198. Published online. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2024.08.011.
Pronouns beyond phi-features: The speaker–addressee relation in Japanese pronouns and its implication for formal pronouns
In this paper, we demonstrate that Japanese pronouns bear the interactional roles of speaker and addressee but lack phi-features and that the separation of interactional roles from phi-features is structurally conditioned. Phi-based pronouns are introduced DP-internally while Japanese pronouns instantiate syntactic categories above the DP that realize interactional content including speaker and addressee roles.
Ritter E, Wiltschko M. Pronouns beyond phi-features: the speaker–addressee relation in Japanese pronouns and its implications for formal pronouns. Journal of Linguistics. Published online 2024:1-36. doi:10.1017/S0022226724000306
.