Language and Communication

In this series 25 PER linei.l: Psychological reality in phonology 26 CHRISTIne I an/.: Studies in the acquisition of deictic terms 28 TOMEn tHRane: Referential semantic analysis 29 tamsin DOnalDSOn: Ngiyambaa 30 kRistjAn ARnason: Quantity in historical phonology 31 jOHn ...

... word maof, which is “the feeling of desiring to see relatives and friends that have not been seen for too long and is by extension trans-ferred to other things”(Omondi 1997: 97 ... Evans 2007, who called this phenomenon 'insubordination'), like To think that I once was a mil-lionaire! ...

In hedendaags Nederlands wordt het woordje van regelmatig gebruikt op een manier die geïllustreerd wordt in (1-3): (1) Dan denk je van waar ben je nou mee bezig? (2) Helaas is de tendens nu van het gaat niet meer. (3) En dan zit ie met 'n smile van ik heb je geholpen. Dit van introduceert directe rede (hoewel soms ook indirecte rede volgt) en komt voor in informeel mondeling taalgebruik (hoewel het niet daartoe beperkt is). De inperkingen tussen haakjes in de voorgaande zin geven al aan, dat zowel taalstructureel als sociolinguïstisch het gebruik van van niet zo makkelijk te omschrijven is. Dit was de reden om tijdens de 5 e sociolinguïstische conferentie in Lunteren (2006) een aparte bijeenkomst te wijden aan dit onderwerp. Aan de discussie lagen drie artikelen ten grondslag: Van Alphen (2006), Foolen (2006) en Mazeland (2006), gepubliceerd in de bundel die al voor de conferentie beschikbaar was. Tijdens de bijeenkomst presenteerden de auteurs nogmaals kort hun artikelen, waarop telkens een commentaar volgde van een 'discussiant': Henk Lammers becommentarieerde het artikel van Van Alphen, Esther Pascual dat van Foolen en Eric Hoekstra gaf commentaar op het paper van Mazeland. Verkuyl (1976) was de eerste die expliciet wees op de gebruikwijze van van die hier aan de orde is. In de jaren daarna werd het verschijnsel meermaals gesignaleerd in Onze Taal: Blok (1979), met reacties daarop van o.a. Verkuyl (1979). Volgende bijdragen waren van Van der Horst (1982) en Zaalberg (1986). Naast het signaleren van het 'nieuwe' gebruik van van, probeerden de auteurs steeds ook een functionele duiding van dit van te geven. In de jaren 90 werd het onderwerp in een aantal kortere artikelen opnieuw opgepakt: Coppen (1994), Hengeveld (1994), Van Mulken (1999) en Romijn (1999). Zijdelings werd het verschijnsel ook wel in andere publicaties genoemd, zoals in Van der Horst en Van der Horst (1999) en Welschen (2002). Vecht (2003) maakte in zijn doctoraalscriptie net als eerder al Van Mulken (1999) en Romijn (1999) gebruik van een corpus. Deze stap naar empirische fundering is te relateren aan de toegenomen

Since the 1970s, the use of the Dutch prepositionvanin the (semi-)quotative function has been noted by several linguists and language users as rapidly increasing in informal speech. In this sense, it can be compared to the English quotative markerlike, which is also used to introduce direct speech. Dutchvan, however, can also occur before indirect speech. This paper concentrates on the pragmatic function(s) of this marker. The typifying function is considered to be of central relevance. Exploiting this meaning in specific contexts, additional pragmatic effects can occur, such as positive and negative politeness, focusing the quote and facilitating expressivity. Whereas (American) Englishlikeseems to have sociolinguistic connotations ('young females'), a similar connotation has not been found for Dutchvan, although further sociolinguistic research is necessary. Variation in individual use has been observed: some speakers seem to avoid the use of the marker, whereas others use...

Verglichen mit dem linken Rand hat der rechte Satzrand bislang wenig Aufmerksamkeit in der Linguistik erhalten." (Averintseva-Klisch 2009:1) [Compared to the left periphery, the right periphery has, up till now, received little attention in Linguistics] Although there is a considerable tradition of research into Dutch particles, particle behavior in the right periphery has not been part of it. This paper is a first exploratory expedition into this terra incognita. After a brief introduction into the syntax of the right periphery of the Dutch clause, we present a number of results of our search for sentence final particles in a large corpus of spoken Dutch. We argue that within in the right periphery, various particle positions should be distinguished. A comparison is made with sentence final particles in other languages, and we compare Dutch sentence final particles with particles in other positions. We briefly address the phenomenon of particle doubling, in which two instances of the same particle occupy two positions in the clause, one being (somewhere) in the right periphery. We finally offer some speculations and conjectures with respect to grammaticalization of particles, and a tentative overview of the pragmatic functions sentence final particles can fulfill.

In recent times the interdisciplinary study of embodied interaction has received a boost in areas as diverse as social enactivism, intersubjectivity research, skills and apprenticeship research, the psychology of joint action, studies of infant-caretaker coregulation (and in other fields), philosophy of social ontology and "mindshaping", as well as dynamic systems approaches to social interaction. The common underlying assumption of these different approaches is that individuals are seen as implicated in each others' meaning making in fundamentally embodied and dynamically interwoven ways. Such approaches stand in a potential relationship of mutual reciprocity with Cognitive Linguistics (CL). Many approaches emphasize the role of bodily perception and action when they appeal to mechanisms of alignment, entrainment, recognition of shared perceptual affordances, or extended bodies that interpenetrate each other structurally (in dance, conversation, body memory, etc.) and reach out into the social sphere. A complementary issue is how embodied mechanisms relate to "cognitive" facets of interaction, such as the sharing of representations, the process by which common ground and a "we"-mode is established, and task co-representations or the meshing of action plans when people follow joint activities. Importantly, many scholars also credit the dynamics of time-locked engagement in a shared task as an ontological and causal plane that deserves study in its own right. In sum, we see newly emergent angles on embodiment with a dynamic, lived, and participation-oriented focus. The advent of new methodological tools matches all this, e.g. joint action experiments, micro-ethnography, (neuro-)phenomenology, or complexity theoretic time-series analysis. Clearly, these issues reflect the long standing CL interest in the intimate connection between embodied experience, imagery, inference, and expression. Cognitive Linguists have developed triedand-true tools for discovering sensorimotor traces in language processing, for doing descriptive analysis of imagery in speech, rhetorics, categorization, language of space, and other fields. CL aims to explain how lived experience informs concepts and the various facets of language in its socio-cultural manifestations. Moreover, the burgeoning interest in 'usage-based' approaches-the action of "languaging"-is making the study of natural conversation contexts increasingly attractive, while language systems are also seen as originating from language use, thus turning the traditional theoretical relation between competence and performance upside down. The idea of speaking-in-interaction is becoming a rich meeting ground between traditional CL theory and new frameworks that highlight intersubjectivity, joint attention and joint action (e.g. Verhagen 2005, Zlatev et al. eds. 2008, Fusaroli et al. 2009). In this theme session we hope to align terminology, merge methodologies, and create a setting for the long overdue cross-fertilization between research communities. We see many opportunities for mutual constructive criticism as well as emerging collaborations around a more integrative theoretical framework, including cross-checks from specialized areas regarding general frameworks. Enactive, interaction related, and dynamics-oriented researchers can benefit from many potent insights in CL; inversely CL can be infused with new tools and ideas from their side. Accordingly, the theme session welcomes both linguistic approaches with a "participatory" focus and general frameworks from which linguists can learn. Questions of interest include-but are not limited to-the following: • How does language understood as a social practice challenge traditional notions of language as a symbolic or representational system and can the two be considered compatible? • How do people make sense together including interaction failures or dynamic repairs (e.g. DiPaolo & DeJaegher 2007)? How are conversations, including their embodied elements such as posture, gaze, gestures, voice, distance, and tempo micro-coordinated? What aspects figure in the making and breaking of interaction dynamics? Do interaction settings create general types of challenges that can be grasped in a taxonomy? What skills are needed to manage interactions competently? • When conversation is dynamically created through interaction rather than planned in advance, what cognitive anticipation, modulation, and correction mechanisms are needed to support this feat? What supportive role do the higher-timescale dynamics and interaction history play?

We can call a building ‘high’ but also ‘very high’, say that someone ‘suffers’ or ‘suffers strongly’, or exclaim that something is a ‘mess’ or a ‘pure mess’. By adding very, strongly, or pure, we as speakers indicate that a certain aspect of a property (in the case of an adjective), activity (verb), or substance (in the case of a noun) does not hold in an average way but ranks high on a scale (cf. Ghesquière & Davidse 2011). Such indications of high degree are called intensification and the lexical means used to express it are called intensifiers. In this paper, we will focus on intensification of adjectives. Intensification presupposes the possibility of gradability. Most adjectives have this semantic property (high, red, happy, etc.); nongradable or absolute adjectives, like rectangular or pregnant, miss this property, although a gradable interpretation can sometimes be coerced by adding an intensifier, for example very pregnant, as in Denver Broncos star poses for a GQ spread alo...

Research over the past decades has demonstrated the explanatory power of emotions, feelings, motivations, moods, and other affective processes when trying to understand and predict how we think and behave. In this consensus article, we ask: has the increasingly recognized impact of affective phenomena ushered in a new era, the era of affectivism?

This chapter focuses on the emotive value ('axiology') of words for left and right in different languages. As a general picture, an asymmetry emerges, with a positive value for right and a negative one for left. The chapter further explores whether this asymmetry is reflected in other domains like in cognitive behavior, culture, and the brain. Special attention is paid to the question whether the leftright dimension should be considered as an image schema in cognitive-linguistic theorizing and whether the axiological dimension should be considered as an integral part of this and other image schemas. In general, the chapter argues that research on the axiological value of words for left and right contributes to insights in the role of laterality in general, including the lateralization of language, handedness and emotion.

Abstract Before looking forward, the past and present of pragmatics is reflected upon. Two developments are signaled as potentially problematic for the identity of the field. On the one hand, there is inner fragmentation in the field of pragmatics. On the other hand there are developments in neighboring fields like cognitive linguistics and cognitive science, which seek to recontextualize to the social-pragmatic dimension, this way coming closer to pragmatics. The two developments lead to the question what the core profile of pragmatics should be in order to play its own distinctive role in future research on human sense-making.

This chapter discusses the development since 1950 of a variety of approaches (such as Structuralism, Generative Grammar, Formal Semantics, and Cognitive Linguistics) to negation within different theoretical frameworks that have been influential for the description of the Dutch language.

This electronic file may not be altered in any way. The author(s) of this article is/are permitted to use this PDF file to generate printed copies to be used by way of offprints, for their personal use only. Permission is granted by the publishers to post this file on a closed server which is accessible to members (students and staff) only of the author’s/s’ institute, it is not permitted to post this PDF on the open internet. For any other use of this material prior written permission should be obtained from the publishers or through the Copyright Clearance Center (for USA: www.copyright.com). Please contact [email protected] or consult our website: www.benjamins.com