1932

Abstract

The main goal of semantic fieldwork is to accurately capture the contribution of natural language expressions to truth conditions and to pragmatic felicity conditions, by interacting with native speakers of the language under investigation. Most semantic fieldwork tasks (including, for example, acceptability judgment tasks, elicited production tasks, and translation tasks) require the researcher to present a discourse context to the consultant. The important questions then become how to present that context to consultants and how to best ensure that the consultant and the researcher have the same context in mind. We argue that phenomena which rely on controlling for interlocutor beliefs are particularly well suited for the storyboard elicitation methodology. This includes “out-of-the-blue” scenarios, which we treat as a special type of discourse context that must also be controlled for. We illustrate these claims by presenting novel storyboards targeting the / ambiguity and verum marking.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011619-030452
2020-01-14
2024-06-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/6/1/annurev-linguistics-011619-030452.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011619-030452&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abbuhl R, Gass S, Mackey A 2014. Experimental research design. Research Methods in Linguistics R Podesva, D Sharma 116–34 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Ameka FK, de Witte C, Wilkins D 1999. Picture series for positional verbs: eliciting the verbal component in locative descriptions. Manual for the 1999 Field Season D Wilkins 48–54 Nijmegen, Neth: Max Planck Inst. Psycholinguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. AnderBois S, Henderson R. 2015. Linguistically establishing discourse context: two case studies from Mayan languages. See Bochnak & Matthewson 2015 207–32
  4. Arunachalam S. 2013. Experimental methods for linguistics. Lang. Linguist. Compass 7:221–32
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bar-el L. 2007. Video as a tool for eliciting semantic distinctions. Proceedings of SULA 4: Semantics of Under-Represented Languages of the Americas AR Deal 1–16 Amherst, MA: Grad. Linguist. Stud. Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bar-el L. 2015. Documenting and classifying aspectual classes across languages. See Bochnak & Matthewson 2015 75–109
  7. Bar-el L, Davis H, Matthewson L 2005. On non-culminating accomplishments. Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the North-East Linguistics Society (NELS35) L Bateman, C Ussery 87–102 Amherst, MA: Grad. Linguist. Stud. Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Beck S, Krasikova S, Fleischer D, Gergel R, Hofstetter S et al. 2009. Crosslinguistic variation in comparative constructions. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 9 J van Craenenbroeck, J Rooryck 1–66 Philadelphia: Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Berman R, Slobin D 1994. Relating Events in Narrative: A Crosslinguistic Development Study Hillsdale, NJ/Hove, UK: Erlbaum
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bochnak MR, Bogal-Allbritten E. 2015. Investigating comparison and degree constructions in underrepresented languages. See Bochnak & Matthewson 2015 110–34
  11. Bochnak MR, Matthewson L 2015. Methodologies in Semantic Fieldwork New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Bohnemeyer J. 2015. A practical epistemology for semantic elicitation in the field and elsewhere. See Bochnak & Matthewson 2015 13–46
  13. Bohnemeyer J, Bowerman M, Brown P 2001. Cut and break clips. Manual for Field Season 2001 SC Levinson, NJ Enfield 90–96 Nijmegen, Neth: Max Planck Inst. Psycholinguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Bowerman M, Pederson E. 1992. Topological relations picture series. Space Stimuli Kit 1.2: November 1992, 51 SC Levinson Nijmegen, Neth: Max Planck Inst. Psycholinguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Bowler M. 2016. The status of degrees in Warlpiri. Proceedings of Semantics of African, Asian and Austronesian Languages 2 M Grubic, A Mucha 1–17 Potsdam, Ger: Univ. Potsdam
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Burton S, Matthewson L. 2015. Targeted construction storyboards in semantic fieldwork. See Bochnak & Matthewson 2015 135–56
  17. Cable S. 2017. The expression of modality in Tlingit: a paucity of grammatical devices. Int. J. Am. Linguist. 83:619–78
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Cerqueglini L. 2018. Standard and culture-specific methodology: examining the spatial domain in Traditional Negev Arabic Paper presented at Fieldwork: Methodologies and Theory, Univ. Gothenburg, Swed., Dec 13–14
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Chafe W 1980. The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production Norwood, NJ: Ablex
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Chen S. 2018. Finding semantic building blocks: temporal and modal interpretation in Atayal PhD Thesis, Univ. B. C Vancouver:
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Cover RT. 2015. Semantic fieldwork on TAM. See Bochnak & Matthewson 2015 233–68
  22. Cover RT, Tonhauser J. 2015. Theories of meaning in the field: temporal and aspectual reference. See Bochnak & Matthewson 2015 306–49
  23. Crain S, Steedman M. 1985. On not being led up the garden path: the use of context by the psychological parser. Natural Language Parsing: Psychological, Computational and Theoretical Perspectives D Dowty, L Karttunen, AM Zwicky 320–54 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Crain S, Thornton R. 1998. Investigations in Universal Grammar: A Guide to Experiments on the Acquisition of Syntax and Semantics Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Dahl Ö 1985. Tense and Aspect Systems New York: Blackwell
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Deal AR. 2015. Reasoning about equivalence in semantic fieldwork. See Bochnak & Matthewson 2015 157–74
  27. Deal AR. 2018. Compositional paths to de re. Proceedings of the 28th Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 28) S Maspong, B Stefánsdóttir, K Blake, F Davis 622–48 Washington, DC: Linguist. Soc. Am.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Eisenbeiss S, McGregor B, Schmidt CM 1999. Story book stimulus for the elicitation of external possessor constructions and dative constructions (“The Circle of Dirt”). Manual for the 1999 Field Season D Wilkins 140–44 Nijmegen, Neth.: Max Planck Inst. Psycholinguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Erbaugh MS. 2001. The Chinese Pear Stories: narratives across seven Chinese dialects. Multimedia package http://pearstories.org
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Gagarina N, Klop D, Kunnari S, Tantele K, Välimaa T et al. 2012. MAIN: Multilingual Assessment Instrument for Narratives Work. Pap., ZAS, Berlin. http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/34782
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Gillon C. 2015. Investigating D in languages with and without articles. See Bochnak & Matthewson 2015 175–203
  32. Harris ZS, Voegelin CF. 1953. Eliciting in linguistics. Southwest. J. Anthropol. 9:59–75
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Höhle TN. 1992. Über Verum-fokus im Deutschen. Informationsstruktur und Grammatik J Jacobs 112–41 Opladen, Ger: Westdeutscher
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Kennedy C. 2007. Modes of comparison. Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS43) M Elliott, J Kirby, O Sawada, E Staraki, S Yoon 141–65 Chicago: Chicago Linguist. Soc.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Koch K. 2008. Intonation and focus in Nɬeʔkepmxcin (Thompson River Salish) PhD Thesis, Univ. B. C Vancouver:
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Krifka M. 2011. Varieties of semantic evidence. Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning 1 C Maienborn, K von Heusinger, P Portner 242–67 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Lima S. 2014. All notional mass nouns are count nouns in Yudja. Proceedings of the 24th Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 24) T Snider, S D'Antonio, M Weigand 534–54 Washington, DC: Linguist. Soc. Am.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Louie M. 2015. The problem with no-nonsense elicitation plans (for semantic fieldwork). See Bochnak & Matthewson 2015 47–71
  39. Maier E. 2009. Presupposing acquaintance: a unified semantics for the dedicto, de re and de se belief reports. Linguist. Philos. 32:429–72
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Martin F. 2019. Non-culminating accomplishments. Lang. Linguist. Compass 13:8e12346
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Matthewson L. 2004. On the methodology of semantic fieldwork. Int. J. Am. Linguist. 70:369–415
    [Google Scholar]
  42. McKenzie A. 2015. Deriving topic effects in Kiowa with semantics and pragmatics. See Bochnak & Matthewson 2015 269–86
  43. Moro FR, Klamer M. 2018. Studying language variation in rural pre-literate Indonesia: challenges and solutions Paper presented at Fieldwork: Methodologies and Theory, Univ. Gothenburg Swed: Dec 13–14
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Murray SE. 2015. Reciprocity in fieldwork and theory. See Bochnak & Matthewson 2015 287–305
  45. Nouri Hosseini G, Bogal-Allbritten E, Coppock E 2018. Storyboards versus picture-aided translation: a superlative elicitation technique Paper presented at Fieldwork: Methodologies and Theory, Univ. Gothenburg, Swed., Dec 13–14
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Sadlier-Brown E. 2018. Pragmatic effects on word order in double object sentences: a comparison of Nata versus English Paper presented at Given!: A Workshop to Celebrate the Life and Work of Michael Rochemont, Univ. B. C Vancouver: Dec 5–6
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Salles R. 2018. Bare nouns in Pirahã: a radically [+arg], [−pred] language?. SULA 10: Proceedings of the 10th Conference on the Semantics of Under-Represented Languages in the Americas K Johnson, A Göbel 197–212 Amherst, MA: Grad. Linguist. Stud. Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Skopeteas S, Fiedler I, Hellmuth S, Schwarz A, Stoel R et al. 2006. Questionnaire on Information Structure: Reference Manual Potsdam, Ger: Potsdam Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Smith C. 1997. The Parameter of Aspect Dordrecht, Neth.: Kluwer
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Smith C, Perkins E, Fernald T 2007. Time in Navajo: direct and indirect interpretations. Int. J. Am. Linguist. 73:40–71
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Talmy L. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Tonhauser J, Beaver D, Roberts C, Simons M 2013. Towards a taxonomy of projective content. Language 89:66–109
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Tonhauser J, Matthewson L. 2016. Empirical evidence in research on meaning Unpubl. ms., Ohio State Univ./Univ. B. C https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002595
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Travis LD. 2010. Inner Aspect Dordrecht, Neth: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  55. van Tiel B, van Miltenburg E, Zevakhina N, Geurts B 2016. Scalar diversity. J. Semant. 33:137–75
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Vander Klok J. 2019. Exploring the interaction of modality and temporality through the storyboard Bill vs. the Weather. Semant. . Field Methods 1:1
    [Google Scholar]
  57. von Prince K, Krajinović A, Krifka M, Guérin V, Franjieh M 2018. The status of degrees in Warlpiri. Proceedings of Linguistic Evidence 2018 A Gattnar, R Hörnig, M Störzer 187–207 Tübingen, Ger: Univ. Tübingen Libr.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Zhornik D, Pokrovskaya S. 2018. Modeling visual stimuli for descriptive fieldwork among the Upper Lozva Mansi: metalanguage versus target language Paper presented at Fieldwork: Methodologies and Theory, Gothenburg, Swed., Dec 13–14
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011619-030452
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011619-030452
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error