Theme Session / Workshop
At the INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON EVIDENTIALITY AND MODALITY IN EUROPEAN LANGUAGES 2014 (EMEL’14)
Facultad de Filología, Universidad Complutense de Madrid,
6-8 October 2014
Dylan Glynn (LAPS, University of Paris VIII) email@example.com
Paola Pietrandrea (University of Tours & CNRS LLL) firstname.lastname@example.org
TOWARDS THE TYPOLOGICALLY VALID ANNOTATION OF DEONTIC, EPISTEMIC, EVIDENTIAL STRUCTURES IN NATURAL LANGUAGE.
Submissions are invited for 20 minutes talks + 10 min. discussion.
Abstracts of 300 words (excluding references) are invited.
Please make sure the abstract contains a clear summary of the research question, the data and method and (prospective) results.
The language of the workshop will be English.
Abstract submission deadline: 25 April 2014
Notification of acceptance by the workshop convenors: 25 May 2014
Notification of acceptance by the conference organisers: 26 May 2014
Papers accepted for oral presentation due by 5 September 2014
This workshop seeks to bring together the research traditions of computational linguistics, corpus linguistics and typology in the study of modality (deontic, epistemic, evidential). More specifically, the categorisation / annotation of the different modal phenomena and the various factors with which they interact is a fundamental concern for all three approaches. Collaboration of such concerns cross the theoretical and methodological divisions and our insights from different perspectives should be to the benefit of all.
Within the computational tradition, as pointed out by Nissim et al. (2013), recent years have witnessed the development of annotation schemes and annotated corpora for different aspects of modality in different languages (McShane et al. (2004); Wiebe et al. (2005); Szarvas et al. (2008); Sauri and Pustejovsky (2009); Hendrickx et al. (2012); Baker et al.(2012)). While there have been efforts towards finding a common avenue for modality annotation, such as the CoNLL-2010 Shared Task, ACL thematic workshops and a special issue of Computational Linguistics (Morante and Sporleder (2012)), the computational linguistics community is still far from having developed working, shared standards for converting modality-related issues into annotation categories.
A similar state of affairs holds for the immense quantity of research in the corpus-driven tradition in modality research where the where functionally determined annotation schemas have long been the focus of debate Most of the research in this tradition has focused on the operationalisation of the manually annotated categories, but recent years have seen the growth methods that employ inter-coder agreement measures and predictive statistical modeling. Key references include, but are not restricted to: Coates (1983); Biber & Finegan (1988, 1989); Aijmer (1997, 2013), Hunston & Thompson (1998); Krug (2000); Nuyts (2001); Mushin (2001); Tucker (2001); Scheibman (2002); Kärkkäinen (2003), Rizomilioti (2003); Facchinetti, Krug & Palmer (2003); Paradis (2003); Marín-Arrese (2004); Martin & White (2005); Simon-Vandenbergen & Aijmer (2007); Hunston (2007); Englebretson (2007); Cornillie (2007); Narrog (2008, 2012); Divjak (2010); Diewald & Smirnova (2010a); Boye (2012); Beijering (2012); Deshors (2012); and Glynn & Sjölin (2014).
In typology, identifying and characterizing the range of modal types and their marking across the languages of the world is clearly an ongoing and immensely difficult task, which is leading towards a complete classification of modal functions and a thorough understanding of the relations holding between modal categories as well as towards an understanding of the grammatical vs. lexical nature of modal markers across languages. One such line of research where the use of corpora is gaining methodological importance is comparative linguistics. Examples of typology research in the field include: van der Auwera & Plungian (1998); Johanson & Utas (2000); Plungian (2001, 2011); Dendale & Tasmowski (2001); Squartini (2001, 2004); Aikhenvald (2004); Wiemer (2005); Wiemer & Plungjan (2008); Holvoet (2007); Xrakovskij (2007); Guentcheva & Landaburu (2007), Hansen & De Haan (2009); Boye & Harder (2009); Mortelmans et al. (2009); Boye (2010); Diewald & Smirnova (2010b, 2011); Mauri & Sanso’ (2012); and Abraham & Leiss (2013).
We invite topologists, computational linguists and corpus linguists working on in the field to join our discussion on the contribution that corpus analyses can bring to the study of modality.
Ideas for research questions include but are not limited to the following:
1. What do corpora teach us about modality? How can corpus analyses help us to refine the repertoire of modal functions? How can the analysis of (parallel) corpora help to determine cross-linguistic (typologically valid) consistency in modal categories?
2. How do we operationalise (for annotation) non-observable (functional - conceptual) modal categories? Do current annotation schemata allow for a thorough identification of the modality and evidentiality markers existing in discourse?
3. What methods exist (usage-feature analysis, sentiment analysis, latent semantic analysis etc.) for the description of modal structures?
4. What statistical instruments of analysis do we need for accounting for the distribution of modal markers in corpora?
Abraham, W. & E. Leiss (eds.). 2013. Funktionen von Modalität. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Aijmer, K. 1997. I think – an English modal particle. T. Swan & O. Jansen Westvik (eds.), Modality in the Germanic Languages, 1–48. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Aijmer, K. 2013. Analyzing modal adverbs as modal particles and discourse markers. L. Degand, B. Cornillie, P. Pietrandrea (eds.), Discourse markers and modal particles: categorization and description, 89-106. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Aikhenvald, Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baker, K., B. Dorr, M. Bloodgood, C. Callison-Burch, N. Filardo, C. Piatko, L. Levin, & S. Miller. 2012. Use of modality and negation in semantically-informed syntactic MT. Computational Linguistics 38.
Beijering, K. 2012. Expressions of Epistmeic Modality in Mainland Scandinavian. PhD dissertation, University of Groningen.
Biber, D. & E. Finegan. 1988. Adverbial stance types in English. Discourse Processes 11: 1–34.
Biber, D. & E. Finegan. 1989. Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text 9: 93–124
Boye, K. 2010. Semantic maps and the identification of cross-linguistic generic categories: Evidentiality and its relation to Epistemic Modality. Linguistic Discovery 8: 4–22.
Boye, K. 2012. Epistemic Meaning. A crosslinguistic and functional-cognitive study. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Boye, K. & P. Harder. 2009. Evidentiality: Linguistic categories and grammaticalization. Functions of Language16: 9-43.
Coates, J. 1983 The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm
Coates, J. 1995. The expression of root and epistemic possibility in English. J. Bybee & S. Fleischman (eds.)Modality in Grammar and Discourse, 55-66. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cornillie, B. 2007. Evidentiality and Epistemic Modality in Spanish (Semi-)Auxiliaries. A Cognitive-Functional Approach. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
de Haan, F. 2005. Typological approaches to modality. W. Frawley (ed.). The Expression of Modality. The expression of cognitive categories, 27–70. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dendale, P. & L. Tasmowski (eds.). 2001 Evidentiality (Sp. ed. Journal of Pragmatics 33). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Deshors, S. 2012. A multifactorial study of the uses of may and can in French-English interlanguage. PhD dissertation, University of Sussex.
Diewald, G. & E. Smirnova (eds). 2010a. The Linguistic Realization of Evidentiality in European Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Diewald, G. & E. Smirnova, 2010b. Evidentiality in German. Linguistic realization and regularities in grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Diewald, G. & E. Smirnova (eds). 2011. Modalität und Evidentialität. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.
Divjak, D. 2010. Corpus-based evidence for an idiosyncratic aspect-modality interaction in Russian. In D. Glynn & K. Fisher (eds), Quantitative Methods in Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven Approaches, 305-330. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Englebretson, R. 2007. (ed.) Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Facchinetti, R. & F. Palmer (eds.). 2003 English Modality in Perspective: Genre analysis and contrastive. Bern: Peter Lang.
Glynn, D. & M. Sjölin, (eds.) 2014. Subjectivity and Epistemicity. Stance strategies in discourse and narration.Lund: Lund University Press.
Guentcheva Z. et J. Landaburu (eds.), 2007. L'énonciation médiatisée II - Le traitement épistémologique de l'information: illustrations amérindiennes et caucasiennes,
Hansen Bj & F. De Haan. 2009. Modals in the languages of Europe, a reference work. Berlin: Mouton.
Hendrickx, I., A. Mendes, & S. Mencarelli. 2012. Modality in text: a proposal for corpus annotation. Proc. of LREC’12.
Holvoet, A. 2007 Mood and Modality in Baltic. Krakow: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagielloflskiego.
Hunston, S. & G. Thompson (eds.) 1998 Evaluation in Text. Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hunston, S. 2007. Using a corpus to investigate stance quantitatively and qualitatively, R. Englebretson (ed.)Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction, 27-48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Johanson, L. & B. Utas (eds.) 2000. Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian and Neighbouring Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Karkkainen, E. 2003. Epistemic Stance in English Conversation. A description of its interactional functions, with a focus on I Think. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Krug, M. 2000. Emerging English Modals: A corpus-based study of grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Marín-Arrese, J. 2004 (ed.) Perspectives on Evidentiality and Modality in English and Spanish. Madrid: Editorial Complutense.
Martin, J. & White, P. 2005. Language of Evaluation. Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave Macmillan
Mauri C. & A. Sanso’. 2012. HYPERLINK "http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0388000110000963" What do languages encode when they encode reality status? Language Sciences 34: 99-106.
McShane, M., S. Nirenburg, & R. Zacharski. 2004. Mood and modality: out of theory and into the fray. Nat. Lang. Eng 10: 57–89.
Morante, R. & C. Sporleder. 2012. Modality and negation: An introduction to the special issue. Computational Linguistics 38: 223–260.
Mortelmans, T., K. Boye, & J. van der Auwera, (eds.). 2009. Modals in the Languages of Europe: A reference work. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Mushin, I. 2001. Evidentiality and Epistemological Stance: Narrative retelling. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Narrog, H. 2008. Modality in Japanese: The layered structure of the clause and hierarchies of functional categories. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Narrog, Heiko. 2012. Modality, Subjectivity, and Semantic Change A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nissim, M., P. Pietrandrea, A. Sansò, & C. Mauri. 2013. Cross-linguistic annotation of modality: a data-driven hierarchical model. Proceedings of the 9th ISO Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation. Potsdam, 19-20 mars 2013.
Nuyts, J. 2001a. Epistemic Modality, Language, and Conceptualization. A cognitive-pragmatic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Nuyts, J. 2001b. Subjectivity as an evidential dimension in epistemic modal expressions. Journal of Pragmatics33: 383-400.
Paradis, C. 2003. Between epistemic modality and degree: the case of really. Facchinetti, R., Krug, M. & Palmer, F. (eds.) Modality in Contemporary English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Plungian, V. 2001. The place of evidentiality within the universal grammatical space. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 349-357.
Plungjan, V. 2011. Введение в грамматическую семантику: грамматические значения и грамма-тические системы языков мира. Москва: Российский государственный гуманитарный университет.
Rizomilioti, V. 2003. Epistemic Modality in Academic Writing: A corpus-linguistic study. PhD thesis. The University of Birmingham.
Sauri R. & J. Pustejovsky. 2012. Are you sure that this happened? Assessing the factuality degree of events in text.Computational Linguistics, 38: 261– 299.
Scheibman, J. 2002. Point of View and Grammar: Structural patterns of subjectivity in American English conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M. & Aijmer, K. 2007. The Semantic Field of Modal Certainty. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Squartini M. 2001a. The internal structure of evidentiality in Romance Studies in Language 25: 297–334.
Squartini M. 2004. Disentangling evidentiality and epistemic modality in Romance. Lingua 114: 873–895.
Szarvas, G., V. Vincze, R. Farkas, & J. Csirik. 2008. The bioscope corpus: annotation for negation, uncertainty and their scope in biomedical texts. In Proc of BioNLP ’08, Stroudsburg, pp. 38–45.
Tucker, G. 2001. Possibly alternative modality: a corpus-based investigation of the modal adverb possibly. Functions of Language 8: 183-215.
van der Auwera, J. & V. Plungian. 1998. Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology 2: 79–124.
Wärnsby, A. (De)coding Modality: The Case of Must, May, Måste and Kan. PhD Dissertation, Lund University.
Wiebe, J., T. Wilson, and C. Cardie (2005). Annotating expressions of opinions and emotions in language.Language Resources and Evaluation 39: 165–210.
Wiemer, B. 2005. Conceptual affinities and diachronic relationships between epistemic, inferential and quotative functions. B. Hansen & P. Karlík (eds.), Modality in Slavonic Languages, New perspectives, 107–131. München: Otto Sagner.
Wiemer, B. & V. Plungjan. (eds.). 2008. Lexikalische Evidenzialitätsmarker im Slavischen. München: Otto Sanger.
Xrakovskij, V. (ed.) 2007. Evidencial'nost' v jazykax Evropy i Azii. Sb. statej pamjati N A. Kozincevoj(Evidentiality in the Languages of Europe and Asia. In the memory of N. A. Kozinceva). Saint-Petersburg: Nauka.