PREREQUISITES

Students should have an ability to follow formal analyses, and they should thus have taken a serious introduction to formal logic or to formal semantics, or have significant experience with mathematical theories. If in doubt, please check with the instructors.

COMMUNICATION

We will communicate through this website and by e-mail. Be sure to be officially registered for the class so that we have your address (write to us early in case of doubt).

Material for the class (readings, slides) will either (i) be linked to the sessions below, or (ii) be made available in this Dropbox folder.

Honor Code To foster learning and discussion, students are discouraged from using phones, tablets or laptops during class, unless this is solely to take notes and/or follow the pdf slides as they are presented (with all other applications closed).

[Summary of some data on this topic]

[Effects of laptop multitasking on users and nearby students]

REQUIREMENTS

Participants will be invited to work on small projects (e.g. literature reviews, formal analyses of a set of phenomena, proposals for experiments). The work will be divided in three steps, which could for optimal efficiency be all be the building up of the final mini-paper.

Squib #1: about a paper discussed in class, or a paper discussed with the instructor due by November 9.

Squib #2: 4 possibilities, deadline December 7, but pease refer to the online instructions for squibs and mini-term papers: 1. similar to the above, or an elaboration on it

2. a subcomponent of your mini-term paper (following the instructions for squibs below),

3. an outline of your mini-term paper (keeping in mind the instructions below),

4. a class presentation (on December 7) pertaining to your mini-term paper (if so, please send the instructors *draft* slides by December 4th).

Please inform the instructors by November 30th of the option you are choosing, with a 2-line description of the topic.

Guidelines for the squibs and mini-term paper can be found HERE.

UPDATED: Mini-term paper: an elaboration on the above, due by January 28.

Note: You are encouraged to get feedback on your work not just from the instructors but also from one or several students. (If so, please indicate which other student(s) you discussed your work with.)

For Squib #2 and for your mini-term paper, we strongly encourage you to:

(i) exchange feedback with a classmate (or several classmates);

(ii) mention on Squib #2 and on your mini-term paper who you teamed up with.

(Further details appear in an email you should have received; please contact the instructors if you didn't.)

- All materials should be submitted by email to all three instructors:

chemla@ens.fr, salvador.mascarenhas@ens.fr, philippe.schlenker@gmail.com.

- Discuss possible topics you may work on with the instructors as early as possible.

Note: Students should not get double academic credit for the same work. If you are pursuing a project you started in another academic context, please (i) make an explicit note of this, and (ii) indicate what is new in the current version.

SESSIONS [to be adapted as we go]

Part A. Super Semantics in reasoning and thought (Chemla & Mascarenhas)

Sept 21: General introduction [pdf slides]

Where: on-site (with the possibility of a remote participation, contact the instructors)

We will introduce the traditional program of semantics, foreshadow how it extends to some non-standard cases,

and present a primer on fundamental semantics-pragmatics notions for this course

Sept. 28:

Topic 1: A common constraint on concepts and logical operations in humans and other animals

Topic 2: Alternatives and competition

Where: there will be no actual class this week. BUT...

Instead, participants are asked to follow these instructions. Do not hesitate to do it collaboratively!

Practical: The classroom can be made available at the usual time on Monday upon request and if appropriate conditions can be ensured.

Oct. 5:

Where: online (zoom link to be distributed on the Friday before)

What: This class will be a discussion of the guided readings from the previous week (see above). These readings may take time, "class" time for this week may be reduced accordingly.

Oct. 12:

Semantics in Reasoning [pdf slides]

Where: on-site (with the possibility of a remote participation, contact the instructors)

Oct. 19:

Language and probabilistic reasoning [pdf slides]

Oct. 26: [no class: cogmaster break]

Part B. Super Semantics in communication (Schlenker)

Due to confinement measures, this part will be on Zoom. Please email the instructor if you haven't received the Zoom link.

In order to know you better, we would like to ask you to fill out this survey. Thanks for doing so!

Reminder: readings that are not linked below will be found in this Dropbox folder.

Reading for this part: Schlenker, What is Super Semantics? Philosophical Perspectives 2019 [published pdf in the Dropbox folder]

Optional background (general audience text on semantics and Super Semantics): What it All Means (provisional title; ask the instructor for a pdf copy).

Nov. 2: Linguistic Inferences Without Words I

Reading: Tieu et al. Linguistic Inferences Without Words

Optional: Schlenker Gestural Semantics

Nov. 9: Linguistic Inferences Without Words II

Towards the beginning of our next class (November 9th), I’ll ask you what you think about the following thought question. This will be a very informal discussion, and it’s intended to maximize interactions – not always a trivial thing on Zoom! (Let me add that this is not an additional homework! You won’t be graded on your answers, and you don’t have to answer if you don’t wish to.)

Thought question: Can you think of *potential* extensions of our replication of the typology of linguistic inferences in gestures? You could pick Extension 1 or Extension 2:

Extension 1: Think of extensions of the inferences we discussed to other types of non-spoken language examples (e.g. sign languages, or non-linguistic forms: drawings, comics, films, etc).

Extension 2 (harder): Think of extensions of our gestural examples of to other types of inferences (besides those we have investigated in class), i.e. beyond entailments, implicatures and presuppositions.

Needless to say, you don’t have to propose an analysis, just think a bit about potential directions.

Nov. 16: Primate Semantics I

Thought question: In your view, what would it take to show that a certain animal species has language? (Try to specify some criteria.)

Optional background: Zuberbühler 2009, Survivor Signals.

Reading: Schlenker, Chemla, Zuberbühler Semantics and Pragmatics of Monkey Communication. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. [pdf]

Longer version: Schlenker et al. Formal Monkey Linguistics. Target article in Theoretical Linguistics. Preprint version

Shorter version: Schlenker, Chemla, Zuberbühler What do Monkey Calls Mean? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20, 12, 894–904. Penultimate version: [pdf]

Note: there is a very recent issues of Proceedings of the Royal Society on animal vs. human languages.

Links:

Further readings and slides on animal linguistics [from 2017, readings partly updated]

BBC article Catherine Hobaiter on chimpanzee gestures.

Great ape gesture dictionary

Chimpanzee vs. Bonobo gestures

Note: Catherine Hobaiter will give the LINGUAE lectures on March 2 and March 4, 2021 (as things stand).

Nov. 23: Primate Semantics II

Thought question: Can you briefly describe your (potential) topic for Squib #2? You might for instance mention (i) what you find exciting about this topic, or (ii) how you will narrow it down (e.g. dataset and/or theories you will consider).

As always, this is very informal (you won't be graded on this!). I encourage everybody to have a go at it (including and especially if you haven't had many opportunities to speak in class). If you are considering several topics, that's fine too.

Nov. 30: Sign Language Semantics I

Thought question: at the beginning of Monday's class, I'll ask those of you who so desire to tell the class about your topic (if you haven't already done so), or about recent changes to your topic (if relevant).

Optional background: Zucchi, Formal semantics of sign languages

Optional background: Delaporte and Shaw, introduction to their historical dictionary of ASL (on the history of LSF and ASL)

Reading: Schlenker Visible Meaning

Shorter alternative: Schlenker Logical Visibility and Iconicity in Sign Language Semantics: Theoretical Perspectives

Dec. 7 Sign Language Semantics II - Student presentations

Thought question: We started discussing in class several cases in which sign languages have the same semantic properties as spoken languages. Can you think of linguistic properties in which you expect the modality (signed vs. spoken) to have important linguistic consequences, and thus to yield *differences* between signed and spoken languages? (One's expectations can be incorrect, and we can learn from this: your answer doesn't have to be right to be interesting!)

Presentations:

Elisabeth Fleck on signal whistles in dolphins

Claudia Cano on animal signals in courtship displays

Dec. 14: Typology of Iconic Enrichments

Thought question: Can you think of examples in which the presence or absence of a gesture modifies (i) the acceptability of a sentence (whether it's 'grammatical', i.e. 'natural', or not), or (ii) its meaning?

Optional: Schlenker Iconic Pragmatics

Optional: Tieu et al. Co-speech gesture projection: evidence from inferential judgments

Gestural Grammar (time permitting)

Background: Abner et al. 2015: Gestures for linguists. [pdf]

Optional: Schlenker Gestural Grammar

Jan. 4: Music Semantics

Background: Jackendoff and Lerdahl, The capacity for music

Optional: Schlenker, Musical Meaning Within Super Semantics.

Optional talk on dance (online): Pritty Patel-Grosz, Dance semantics and extensions to music (live online, November 7, 2020)

Links: Bernstein on meaning in music Bernstein on Strauss's Don Quixote Another take on the William Tell Overture