LINGUAE 26 - Multimodal Semantics Course
February - March 2026 - on Zoom only
LINGUAE, Institut Jean-Nicod, CNRS
Embedded Files
(The schedule is still somewhat tentative, as we will adapt things as the seminar progresses)
FORMAT
FORMAT
We will offer several 2-hour sessions on multimodal semantics in February-March 2026 (precise number to be determined, probably 5-7). The course will be entirely conducted on Zoom. The course is open but interested students and colleagues must register online (Zoom links will be sent by email).
We will offer several 2-hour sessions on multimodal semantics in February-March 2026 (precise number to be determined, probably 5-7). The course will be entirely conducted on Zoom. The course is open but interested students and colleagues must register online (Zoom links will be sent by email).
Students who wish to validate the course for an MA program should contact the instructor by email (with their MA's approval).
Students who wish to validate the course for an MA program should contact the instructor by email (with their MA's approval).
TOPIC
TOPIC
Formal semantics and pragmatics used to be solely concerned with spoken languages. Not any more. In recent years, as part of a more general multimodal revolution in linguistics, there has been a flurry of formal work on the meaning of sign languages, gestures, and even visual animations and emojis. How has our understanding of meaning changed as a result?
Formal semantics and pragmatics used to be solely concerned with spoken languages. Not any more. In recent years, as part of a more general multimodal revolution in linguistics, there has been a flurry of formal work on the meaning of sign languages, gestures, and even visual animations and emojis. How has our understanding of meaning changed as a result?
Sign languages have been a primary source of insights, and have made two major contributions to the foundations of semantics. First, categories that had been developed for spoken languages (= 'speech') turned out to be illuminating for sign languages (= 'sign') as well, but occasionally in a more transparent form (this has been proposed for logical variables, for context shift, and for telicity marking, which are arguably overtly marked in sign languages). Second, sign languages combine the same kind of logical and grammatical structure as spoken languages with a much richer iconic component. This has made it essential to devise more expressive formal systems that combine a logical and a pictorial component, hence a very fruitful interaction with recent work on the formal semantics of pictures (notably by Greenberg and Abusch).
The importance of iconicity in sign languages has led comparative linguistics to adopt a motto, due to Goldin-Meadow and Brentari, according to which sign with iconicity should be compared to speech with gestures rather than to speech alone. This, in turn, led to detailed work on the formal semantics and pragmatics of different gesture types (depending on whether they co-occur, follow or fully replace spoken words). Gestures have also offered surprising insights of their own. Despite their rarity, gestures that fully replace words arguably have a proto-grammar that is sometimes reminiscent of the (incomparably more sophisticated) grammar of sign languages, hence new questions about some linguistic universals. And novel iconic gestures seem to be integrated on the fly within a sophisticated inferential typology, with a division of their meaning among assertion, presupposition, implicature, etc.
This finding raises questions about the 'generative engine' behind various semantic and pragmatic phenomena, and in particular its ability to integrate in similar ways non-standard forms such as pictures, visual animations, and emojis.
Notes:
Sign languages have been a primary source of insights, and have made two major contributions to the foundations of semantics. First, categories that had been developed for spoken languages (= 'speech') turned out to be illuminating for sign languages (= 'sign') as well, but occasionally in a more transparent form (this has been proposed for logical variables, for context shift, and for telicity marking, which are arguably overtly marked in sign languages). Second, sign languages combine the same kind of logical and grammatical structure as spoken languages with a much richer iconic component. This has made it essential to devise more expressive formal systems that combine a logical and a pictorial component, hence a very fruitful interaction with recent work on the formal semantics of pictures (notably by Greenberg and Abusch).
The importance of iconicity in sign languages has led comparative linguistics to adopt a motto, due to Goldin-Meadow and Brentari, according to which sign with iconicity should be compared to speech with gestures rather than to speech alone. This, in turn, led to detailed work on the formal semantics and pragmatics of different gesture types (depending on whether they co-occur, follow or fully replace spoken words). Gestures have also offered surprising insights of their own. Despite their rarity, gestures that fully replace words arguably have a proto-grammar that is sometimes reminiscent of the (incomparably more sophisticated) grammar of sign languages, hence new questions about some linguistic universals. And novel iconic gestures seem to be integrated on the fly within a sophisticated inferential typology, with a division of their meaning among assertion, presupposition, implicature, etc.
This finding raises questions about the 'generative engine' behind various semantic and pragmatic phenomena, and in particular its ability to integrate in similar ways non-standard forms such as pictures, visual animations, and emojis.
Notes:
(i) The seminar will not presuppose any knowledge of sign language or of sign language linguistics. Students may submit homeworks on any topic (speech, sign, gestures, visual animations, emojis…) that directly interacts with the seminar's discussions.
(i) The seminar will not presuppose any knowledge of sign language or of sign language linguistics. Students may submit homeworks on any topic (speech, sign, gestures, visual animations, emojis…) that directly interacts with the seminar's discussions.
(ii) The course does not purport to offer a general survey of multimodal semantics. It is heavily tilted towards the interests of the instructor's team. So we won't be able to do justice to all interesting works conducted by several other teams, both theoretical and experimental.
(ii) The course does not purport to offer a general survey of multimodal semantics. It is heavily tilted towards the interests of the instructor's team. So we won't be able to do justice to all interesting works conducted by several other teams, both theoretical and experimental.
SCHEDULING: Mondays 10:00am-12:00 Paris time
1st session: Monday, February 2, 2026
SCHEDULING: Mondays 10:00am-12:00 Paris time
1st session: Monday, February 2, 2026
All times are given in Paris time (this is GMT+1). To find the corresponding time where you live, use for instance this website.
REGISTERING AND CONNECTING ON ZOOM
REGISTERING AND CONNECTING ON ZOOM
You should have received by email a link to a Google Survey asking for your background and email address. It is essential that you fill out this survey so the instructor has your email address and can send you the Zoom link for the course.
If you haven't received the link to the Google Survey, please contact the instructor by email (philippe.schlenker@gmail.com).
SYLLABUS
SYLLABUS
See below.
SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETING
SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETING
Since this is a course offered across multiple regions of the world and without special funding, if a member from institution X needs sign language interpreting, we'll ask institution X to provide long-distance interpreting in the relevant sign language. Needless to say, the instructor will be delighted to coordinate with interpreters.
(Independently of the issue of sign language interpreting, we might try Zoom captioning, but at this point we just don't know how well it works. And it's not intended to replace sign language interpreting.)
ONLINE INTERACTION
ONLINE INTERACTION
-We will record sessions. But to ensure that this does not get in the way of online interactions, we will edit questions out if we ever make the video public (as opposed to just sharing videos on a person-by-person basis).
-Participants are strongly invited to take an active role and ask questions / make remarks. Too many questions are better than too few !
-The instructor won't be able to monitor the chat.
-Whenever possible, the instructor will stay for a bit after the course is officially over for an addition Q&A in case there wasn't time for all questions.
HOMEWORKS
HOMEWORKS
Students interested in validating the course for an MA program should 1. get their program's approval, and 2. contact the instructor by email.
Participants who so desire can submit (i) one mini-squib in the middle of the seminar, details below; (ii) one mini-term paper, details below.
Due date for the squib: Monday, March 2 at philippe.schlenker@gmail.com
Due date for the mini-term paper: 10 days after the last class.
PRE-REQUISITES
PRE-REQUISITES
At least one course in formal semantics.
READINGS AND SLIDES
READINGS AND SLIDES
If they are not linked below, they should be in this Dropbox folder.
SCHEDULE AND TOPICS
SCHEDULE AND TOPICS
(Probably) 5 to 7 weeks in February-March 2026 - see below for sessions and readings.
Each session will be 2 hours long.
REFERENCES
REFERENCES
See below for details.
General surveys
Sign language
Schlenker, Lamberton and Kuhn, Sign Language Semantics
Schlenker, Visible Meaning
Some chapters of What it All Means will be made available as optional, non-technical background readings.
Additional reading:
Kathryn Davidson. Formal semantics and pragmatics in sign languages. [draft of a book manuscript] (from the author's research page)
Gestures
Ebert, Semantics of Gesture
Schlenker, The Meaning and Grammar of Pure Gestures: Theoretical Insights
For the sign-gesture connection, see also: Goldin-Meadow and Brentari 2017
SCHEDULE AND READINGS
SCHEDULE AND READINGS
(tentative - to be adapted as we go!; see this Dropbox folder)
Monday, February 2
Introduction + Overview of Sign Language Semantics I
Readings: Schlenker, Lamberton and Kuhn, Sign Language Semantics
Introductory alternative: Schlenker, What it All Means Chapter 2 (general audience)
Optional [and long]:
Schlenker, Visible Meaning
Monday, February 9
Overview of Sign Language Semantics II
Readings: Schlenker, Lamberton and Kuhn, Sign Language Semantics
[same as for Session 1; see above for alternatives]
Start reading: Schlenker and Lamberton 2024 'Iconological Semantics'
Monday, February 16
Iconological Semantics I
Readings: Schlenker and Lamberton 2024 'Iconological Semantics'
Monday, February 23
Iconological Semantics II; Iconic syntax
Readings: Schlenker et al. 2023 'Iconic Syntax'
Monday, March 2: NO CLASS (Winter vacation)
Squib due by email to the instructor]
Monday, March 9
Monday, March 16
Monday, March 23
Instructions for the mini-squib
Instructions for the mini-squib
Length: at most 1 single-spaced page
A squib is similar to a mini-term paper, except that (i) it is shorter, at most 1 page, (ii) it is less advanced scientifically. You may present a puzzle without a solution (and discuss extension of the puzzle and possibly of solutions for the mini-term paper). [The online journal Snippets gives good examples of what very brief linguistic analyses can be.]
Instructions for the mini-term paper
Instructions for the mini-term paper
Length: at most 4 single-spaced pages
The mini-term paper is intended to discuss (i) a new empirical or formal problem, and if possible (ii) sketch one or several possible solutions. Empirical and/or formal precision are essential: the goal is to make a contribution to a very narrow problem, if possible a new one. The mini-term paper can of course build on the squib. [The online journal Snippets gives good examples of what very brief linguistic analyses can be.]
INTRODUCTION: introduce the general empirical or formal problem you will be discussing, and announce what the main finding will be.
BACKGROUND: discuss very briefly existing analyses that are relevant for the problem you are discussing (references should appear in the bibliography). In view of length restrictions, this part should be minimal; you should primarily ensure that crucial references are cited.
PROBLEM: discuss in detail the empirical or formal problem you have uncovered, for instance:
(i) a set of data for which an analysis we have discussed makes incorrect predictions,
(ii) a potential application of an analysis to significantly new examples or even data types [e.g. applying to emojis what was developed for gestures]
(iii) a new set of data that our analyses have no account for [if so, you should eventually try to state a clear generalization, i.e. a describe rule that predicts the data; sometimes this is hard!]
SOLUTION: discuss possible solutions to this problem. For instance:
if (i): how to repair or replace the theory that makes incorrect predictions;
if (ii): show in detail how the analysis applies to some of your new examples;
if (iii): if possible, propose a new theory to derive your new data/your new generalization.
You may want to state additional predictions that should be tested in future research.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse