This page is for a course I was teaching at the LOT summer school (July 10-14 2023, Utrecht)

Course description

The goal of this course is to introduce students to a view regarding the syntax-pragmatics interface which takes into considerations insights from other linguistic frameworks that are dedicated to dealing with language in interaction (e.g., conversation analysis, interactional linguistics, etc.). This departs from traditional generative assumptions according to which the language of interaction is largely considered to be a matter of performance (rather than competence). However, work in conversation analysis has clearly demonstrated that a communicative competence underlies the human ability to talk to each other. We will explore aspects of this communicative competence that are arguably in the purview of grammatical knowledge. I will present and use a syntactic model (the interactional spine hypothesis, Wiltschko 2021) according to which the construction of common ground as well as the regulation of turn-taking is (in part) constrained by the syntactic spine. Broadening the domain of syntax in this way leads us to explore and analyse empirical phenomena that have not traditionally been part of the data-base considered for theorizing about the human language faculty. Conversely, by taking a generative perspective we are led to explore questions of universality and variation in the domain of interactional language, something that has not been systematically considered within other frameworks.

Day-to-day program

1. The framework: The Interactional Spine Hypothesis (ISH)

  • I will introduce the basic framework for discovery and analysis and how it compares to approaches that also deal with the syntax-pragmatics interface.
  • - Core tenets of the interactional spine hypothesis (Wiltschko 2021)
  • - Historical background (speech act theory, conversation analysis, interactional linguistics,…)
  • - Comparison to approaches towards syntacticizing speech acts
  • - Methodological necessities

  • Reading:
  • Wiltschko, M. (2021). The grammar of interactional language. Cambridge University Press. (chapters 1-4)

  • Class material:
  • The slides for the first lecture are available here.

2. The syntax of discourse markers

We shall explore universality and variation in discourse markers dedicated to...- eliciting a response: confirmationals- marking a reaction: response markers- marking the status of the propositional content with the knowledge state of the speaker- marking the status of the propositional content with the knowledge state of the addressee Reading Wiltschko, M. (2021). The grammar of interactional language. Cambridge University Press. (chapters 5-6) Class material:The slides for the first lecture are available here

3. The syntax of-self talk

We will explore constraints on language in self-talk. Given that interactional language is defined by the interaction between a speaker and an addressee, self-talk serves as a limiting case: there is no obvious addressee. Based on an observation in Holmberg (2010) according to which when people talk to themselves they can use either “I” or “you” to talk to themselves, I show that these types of self-talk have different grammatical constraints. “I-centered” self talk is essentially a way of thinking out loud, whereas when using “you-centered” self-talk one has a conversation with oneself. As such self-talk serves as an important diagnostic tool for the syntax of interactional language: addressee-oriented phenomena are disallowed in “I-centered” self talk Reading Holmberg, A.. 2010. Referring to yourself in self talk. In: Structure preserved. Studies in syntax for Jan Koster. Edited by C. J.-W. Zwart and M. de Vries. John Benjamins. 185–192Ritter, E. & M. Wiltschko (2021). Grammar constrains the way we talk to ourselves. Proceedings of the CLA 2021 Goddard, Q. ; E. Ritter & M. Wiltschko (2022) Who am I talking to when I’m talking to myself? A cross-linguistic study. Proccedings of the CLA 2022. Class material:The slides for the first lecture are available here

4. The syntax of emotive language

Language in interaction is often emotionally charged and language has means for speakers to express their emotions (via expressive language and interjections, for example). We will explore the role of the Interactional Spine Hypothesis in our understanding of emotive language. Reading Wiltschko, M. (2023) The relation between language and the emotions. The view from grammar. (ms. ICREA, UPF). [please do not share this one... I'm still revising it] !The final published version is here. Class material:The slides for the first lecture are available here

5. The syntax of talking heads: Implications for modelling the language faculty.

According to the ISH several aspects of language that belong to language in use are part of the syntactic structure. This means that we have to reconsider how we model our language faculty. That is, the classic T- or Y-model that defined generative grammar for decades needs to be revised to accommodate the integration of language in use. In addition, the integration of linguistic interaction within the language faculty also invites us to reconsider our model of the mind. I will show how evidence from language-acquisition, neuro-diversity, and comparative psychology (animal communication and cognition) can be used and reconsidered in light of the ISH. Reading Wiltschko, M. (2022) What is the syntax-pragmatics interface. In : Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 14 Edited by Gabriela Bîlbîie, Berthold Crysmann & Gerhard Schaden. Class material:The slides for the first lecture are available here

Copyright © 2020 Network Solutions, LLC, A Web.com Company. All rights reserved.