Mark Dingemanse

Presentations

Displaying 1 - 78 of 78
  • Rasenberg, M., & Dingemanse, M. (2019). Negotiating mutual understanding in multimodal interaction: A comparative and experimental approach. Talk presented at the 16th International Pragmatics Conference. Hong Kong. 2019-06-09 - 2019-06-14.
  • Rasenberg, M., Dingemanse, M., & Ozyurek, A. (2019). Lexical and gestural alignment in collaborative referring. Talk presented at the 6th European and 9th Nordic Symposium on Multimodal Communication (MMSYM). leuven, Belgium. 2019-09-09 - 2019-09-10.
  • Blokpoel, M., Dingemanse, M., Kachergis, G., Bögels, S., Drijvers, L., Eijk, L., Ernestus, M., De Haas, N., Holler, J., Levinson, S. C., Lui, R., Milivojevic, B., Neville, D., Ozyurek, A., Rasenberg, M., Schriefers, H., Trujillo, J. P., Winner, T., Toni, I., & Van Rooij, I. (2018). Ambiguity helps higher-order pragmatic reasoners communicate. Talk presented at the 14th biannual conference of the German Society for Cognitive Science, GK (KOGWIS 2018). Darmstadt, Germany. 2018-09-03 - 2018-09-06.
  • Bögels, S., Milvojevic, B., De Haas, N., Döller, C., Rasenberg, M., Ozyurek, A., Dingemanse, M., Eijk, L., Ernestus, M., Schriefers, H., Blokpoel, M., Van Rooij, I., Levinson, S. C., & Toni, I. (2018). Creating shared conceptual representations. Poster presented at the 10th Dubrovnik Conference on Cognitive Science, Dubrovnik, Croatia.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2017). Moving beyond bouba and kiki: Cross-linguistically attested iconic mappings in spoken languages. Talk presented at the workshop Types of iconicity in language use, development, and processing. Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 2017-07-06 - 2017-07-07.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2016). Arbitrariness, systematicy and iconicity in natural language [invited lecture]. Talk presented at the Interacting Minds Center. Aarhus, Denmark. 2016-03-08.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2016). Is "Huh?" a universal word? [public lecture]. Talk presented at the Festsalen, Copenhagen University (Ig Nobel Scandinavian Tour). Copenhagen, Denmark. 2016-03-12.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2016). Is "Huh?" a universal word? [public lecture]. Talk presented at the Karolinska Institute (Ig Nobel Scandinavian Tour). Stockholm, Sweden. 2016-03-13.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2016). Arbitrariness, iconicity and systematicity in language [invited lecture]. Talk presented at the Leiden Institute for Brain and Cognition. Leiden, The Netherlands. 2016-02-04.
  • Dingemanse, M., & van Leeuwen, T. M. (2016). What does sound-symbolism have to do with synaesthesia?. Talk presented at the Grote Taaldag. Utrecht, The Netherlands. 2016-02-06.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2016). Towards a typology of conversational structures: The case of other-initiated repair [invited lecture]. Talk presented at the Functional & Cognitive Linguistics: Grammar and Typology. Department of Linguistics. Leuven, Belgium. 2016-04-24.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2016). Is "Huh?" a universal word? [public lecture]. Talk presented at the Aarhus University (Ig Nobel Scandinavian Tour). Aarhus, Denmark. 2016-02-08.
  • Lockwood, G., Drijvers, L., Hagoort, P., & Dingemanse, M. (2016). In search of the kiki-bouba effect. Poster presented at the Eighth Annual Meeting of the Society for the Neurobiology of Language (SNL 2016), London, UK.

    Abstract

    The kiki-bouba effect, where people map round shapes onto round sounds (such as [b] and [o]) and spiky shapes onto “spiky” sounds (such as [i] and [k]), is the most famous example of sound symbolism. Many behavioural variations have been reported since Köhler’s (1929) original experiments. These studies examine orthography (Cuskley, Simner, & Kirby, 2015), literacy (Bremner et al., 2013), and developmental disorders (Drijvers, Zaadnoordijk, & Dingemanse, 2015; Occelli, Esposito, Venuti, Arduino, & Zampini, 2013). Some studies have suggested that the cross-modal associations between linguistic sound and physical form in the kiki-bouba effect are quasi-synaesthetic (Maurer, Pathman, & Mondloch, 2006; Ramachandran & Hubbard, 2001). However, there is a surprising lack of neuroimaging data in the literature that explain how these cross-modal associations occur (with the exceptions of Kovic et al. (2010)and Asano et al. (2015)). We presented 24 participants with randomly generated spiky or round figures and 16 synthesised, reduplicated CVCV (vowels: [i] and [o], consonants: [f], [v], [t], [d], [s], [z], [k], and [g]) nonwords based on Cuskley et al. (2015). This resulted in 16 nonwords across four conditions: full match, vowel match, consonant match, and full mismatch. Participants were asked to rate on a scale of 1 to 7 how well the nonword fit the shape it was presented with. EEG was recorded throughout, with epochs timelocked to the auditory onset of the nonword. There were significant behavioural effects of condition (p<0.0001). Bonferroni t-tests show participants rated full match more highly than full mismatch nonwords. However, there was no reflection of this behavioural effect in the ERP waveforms. One possible reason for the absence of an ERP effect is that this effect may jitter over a broad latency range. Currently oscillatory effects are being analysed, since these are less dependent on precise time-locking to the triggering events.
  • Lockwood, G., van Leeuwen, T. M., Drijvers, L., & Dingemanse, M. (2016). Synaesthesia and sound-symbolism — insights from the Groot Nationaal Onderzoek project. Poster presented at the Synesthesia and Cross-Modal Perception, Dublin, Ireland.
  • Lockwood, G., Hagoort, P., & Dingemanse, M. (2016). Synthesized size-sound sound symbolism. Talk presented at the 38th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci 2016). Philadelphia, PA, USA. 2016-08-10 - 2016-08-13.

    Abstract

    Studies of sound symbolism have shown that people can associate sound and meaning in consistent ways when presented with maximally contrastive stimulus pairs of nonwords such as bouba/kiki (rounded/sharp) or mil/mal (small/big). Recent work has shown the effect extends to antonymic words from natural languages and has proposed a role for shared cross-modal correspondences in biasing form-to-meaning associations. An important open question is how the associations work, and particularly what the role is of sound-symbolic matches versus mismatches. We report on a learning task designed to distinguish between three existing theories by using a spectrum of sound-symbolically matching, mismatching, and neutral (neither matching nor mismatching) stimuli. Synthesized stimuli allow us to control for prosody, and the inclusion of a neutral condition allows a direct test of competing accounts. We find evidence for a sound-symbolic match boost, but not for a mismatch difficulty compared to the neutral condition.
  • Van Leeuwen, T. M., Dingemanse, M., Lockwood, G., & Drijvers, L. (2016). Color associations in nonsynaesthetes and synaesthetes: A large-scale study in Dutch. Talk presented at the Synesthesia and Cross-Modal Perception. Dublin, Ireland. 2016-04-22.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2015). Arbitrariness, Iconicity and Systematicity [invited lecture]. Talk presented at the Colloquium of the Department for Comparative Linguistics. Zürich, Switzerland. 2015-11-25.
  • Dingemanse, M., & van Leeuwen, T. M. (2015). De Zintuigenquiz: Groot Nationaal Onderzoek [public lecture]. Talk presented at the Researchers' Night Science Festival. Nijmegen, the Netherlands. 2015-09-26.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2015). Conversational repair and pragmatic universals [invited]. Talk presented at the Department of Comparative Linguistics, University of Zürich. Zürich, Switzerland. 2015-10-16.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2015). Ideophones and reduplication. Talk presented at the 8th World Congress of African Linguistics (WOCAL8). Kyoto, Japan. 2015-08-23.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2015). Hè? Wat misverstanden zeggen over taal en de mens [public lecture]. Talk presented at the Ig Nobel Night. Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 2015-10-03.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2015). Other-initiated repair across languages: a developmental perspective [invited]. Talk presented at the Acquisition processes in maximally diverse languages (ACQDIV Kickoff Meeting). Zürich, Switzerland. 2015-06-10.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2015). Sound and sense: Iconicity and sound-symbolism in natural language [invited]. Talk presented at the Center for the Study of the Senses, Institute of Philosophy, School of Advanced Study. London, UK. 2015-11-12.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2015). An introduction to pragmatic typology. Talk presented at the 14th International Pragmatics Conference. Antwerp, Belgium. 2015-07-27.
  • Dingemanse, M., Floyd, S., & Enfield, N. J. (2015). Pragmatic typology: Unity and diversity in systems of language use. Talk presented at the Diversity Linguistics: Retrospect and Prospect. Leipzig, Germany. 2015-05-01.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2015). Verstrengelde zintuigen [public lecture]. Talk presented at the Radboud Rocks Science Festival. Nijmegen, the Netherlands. 2015-05-28.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2015). Using misunderstandings to understand language and social interaction [Invited talk]. Talk presented at the Centre de recherche sur les interactions sociales (CRIS), Université de Neuchâtel. Neuchâtel, Switzerland. 2015-02-02.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2015). The Power of "Huh?". Talk presented at the TEDx Amsterdam. Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 2015-11-27.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2015). Waarom zijn er in Afrika zoveel verschillende talen? [public lecture]. Talk presented at the Afrikamuseum. Berg en Dal, the Netherlands. 2015-04-25.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2014). A cross-linguistic study of other-initiated repair: System, cost, and choice [Invited talk]. Talk presented at the Workshop on Miscommunication, Queen Mary University. London, UK. 2014-05-14 - 2014-05-15.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2014). Dependencies in language systems — Two case studies in methods and mechanisms. Talk presented at the Workshop on Dependencies among Systems of Language. Château de la Poste, Belgium. 2014-06-04 - 2014-06-07.
  • Dingemanse, M., Torreira, F., & Enfield, N. J. (2014). Conversational infrastructure and the convergent evolution of linguistic items. Talk presented at EVOLANG 10 (10th International Conference on the Evolution of Language). Vienna. 2014-04-14 - 2014-04-17.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2014). How to combine multiple modes of representation in language [Invited lecture]. Talk presented at at the Center for Cognitive Semiotics. Lund, Sweden. 2014-12-11.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2014). Morphosyntactic Typology of Ideophones: From Description to Explanation [Invited talk]. Talk presented at the Workshop on Structuring Sensory Imagery. Rochester, NY. 2014-05-01 - 2014-05-02.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2014). Media als middel — tips vanuit het oog van een mediastorm [Invited talk]. Talk presented at the Vakconferentie Wetenschapscommunicatie. Amsterdam. 2014-10-01.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2014). On the centrality of ‘marginalia’ for theory and methods in linguistics [Invited talk]. Talk presented at the Linguistics Department Stockholm University March 27. Stockholm, Sweden. 2014-03-27.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2014). On the margins of language. Talk presented at the TWIST Leiden Conference on Linguistics. Leiden, NL. 2014-05-20.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2014). Studying Conversation across Cultures. Talk presented at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America. Minneapolis, USA. 2014-01-02 - 2014-02-05.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2014). The Future of Linguistics [Invited talk]. Talk presented at the informal roundtable "Linguistics Quo Vadis". Nijmegen, NL. 2014-03-10.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2014). Sound-symbolism, iconicity, and ideophones [Invited talk]. Talk presented at the Linguistics Department Tilburg University. Tilburg, NL. 2014-04-02.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2014). Stemmen van Afrika [Public lecture]. Talk presented at at the Studium Generale Leiden. Leiden. 2014-06-10.
  • Dingemanse, M., Enfield, N. J., Baranova, J., Blythe, J., Drew, P., Floyd, S., Gisladottir, R. S., Kendrick, K. H., Levinson, S. C., Manrique, E., & Rossi, G. (2014). Other-initiated repair across languages: A systematic comparison. Talk presented at the 4th International Conference on Conversation Analysis [ICCA 2014]. University of California at Los Angeles, CA. 2014-06-25 - 2014-06-29.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2014). Pragmatic typology and convergent evolution in language [Invited talk]. Talk presented at the Dahlem Lecture in Linguistics at Philosophy/Humanities Department, Freie Universität. Berlin. 2014-05-27.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2014). Understanding Agency through Misunderstandings [Invited talk]. Talk presented at the retreat 'Foundations of Social Agency', Schloss Ringberg Tegernsee. Tegernsee, Germany.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2014). Unity and diversity in systems of language use [Invited talk]. Talk presented at at the Workshop on Language Evolution and Diversity. Nijmegen. 2014-10-30 - 2014-10-31.
  • Dingemanse, M., Verhoef, T., & Roberts, S. G. (2014). The role of iconicity in the cultural evolution of communicative signals. Talk presented at the Workshop on Evolution of Signals, Speech and Signs. Vienna. 2014-04-14 - 2014-04-17.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2014). Waarom zijn er in Afrika zoveel verschillende talen? [Public lecture]. Talk presented at at the MuseumJeugdUniversiteit, Afrikamuseum. Berg en Dal. 2014-09-14.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2014). Waarom zijn er zoveel talen in Afrika?. Talk presented at the Afrikadag, Nijmeegse Scholengemeenschap (NSG). Nijmegen, the Netherlands. 2014-12-18.
  • Floyd, S., Rossi, G., Enfield, N. J., Baranova, J., Blythe, J., Dingemanse, M., Kendrick, K. H., & Zinken, J. (2014). Everyday requesting across eight languages [Invited talk]. Talk presented at the Center for Language, Interaction, and Culture (CLIC) workshop 'About Face'. University of California at Los Angeles, CA. 2014-02-07 - 2014-02-08.
  • Floyd, S., Rossi, G., Enfield, N. J., Baranova, J., Blythe, J., Dingemanse, M., Kendrick, K. H., & Zinken, J. (2014). Recruitments across languages: A systematic comparison. Talk presented at the 4th International Conference on Conversation Analysis [ICCA 2014]. University of California at Los Angeles, CA. 2014-06-25 - 2014-06-29.

    Abstract

    We present the questions, methods, and findings of a major comparative project on ‘recruitments’. These are sequences in which one party’s behavior is solicited or otherwise occasioned by that of another party, ranging from directives to indirect requests to subtle hints. Though there has been considerable research in this area, we present a new systematic and comparative approach, working with a broad sample of languages and cultures based on closely comparable video recorded corpora, representing Asia, Africa, Europe, Australia and the Americas. We present results from this comparison looking for cross-linguistic differences and similarities in the formal resources of each language (their “grammars of recruiting”) and in how these resources are used in sequential context. The questions motivating this detailed comparison concern the ways in which people use semiotic resources in managing relationships in social life, particularly in the distribution of agency in which people act in the service of others’ goals, including shared goals (see Enfield 2013). The recruitment sequences we are interested in here allow us to study the fission-fusion agency whereby people navigate the interactional contingencies of distributed social and practical agency. This is a wider domain of sociality than what is usually covered by the term ‘request’, so we apply the term ‘recruitment’ to a broader class of actions. The recruitment sequences that we compare cross-linguistically minimally consist of (1) two people, A and B, (2) a first move in which A says and/or does something that B can hear or see, and (3) a second move in which B responds by doing something practical (other than saying something) that is fitted to what A just said and/or did. Other terms such as ‘rejection’ and ‘fulfillment’ characterize the different things that can be done by B after A’s recruitment move. Project members have each collected 200 such recruitment cases among adult speakers in naturally-occurring conversational video corpora and then further characterized them into sub-types of sequences, many of which are ‘requests’ in the usual sense of that term. Previous studies of recruitments in interaction have added to our understanding by identifying relationships between the selection of formal resources for requesting and the contingencies of interaction (Craven & Potter, 2010; Curl and Drew, 2008; Heinemann, 2006; Schegloff, 1979; Taleghani-Nikazm, 2006; Vinkhuyzen & Szymanski, 2005; Wootton 1997; Zinken & Ogiermann, 2011). In the large-scale cross-linguistic comparative framework of this project we can ask further questions about cultural variation in relations between formal resources and social action by keeping the sequence type constant across 8 language corpora and studying how speakers of different languages accomplish similar recruiting actions in interaction. Our quantitative results show how certain sets of resources recur cross-linguistically as practices for achieving similar actions. For example, in all of the languages speakers choose among imperative, declarative and interrogative sentence types, between spoken, visual, or multimodal formats, and between ‘bare’ requests and mitigated requests including accounts or minimizers like diminutive marking: we discuss how speakers select from among all these options according to interactional contingencies. Speakers in different linguistic and cultural contexts handle similar interactional contingencies with largely similar means, but they also show some areas of cultural variation. The research team contributing to this project has developed a detailed coding scheme which has been administered with reference to comparable corpora of video-recorded everyday conversation in 8 languages from around the world: Siwu (Ghana), Lao (Laos), Cha’palaa (Ecuador), Murriny-Patha (Australia), Dutch, Russian, English, Mandarin Chinese, and Italian. In this session we will present a concise and comprehensive overview of the questions, methods, and results of this comparative project.
  • Kendrick, K. H., Brown, P., Dingemanse, M., Floyd, S., Gipper, S., Hayano, K., Hoey, E., Hoymann, G., Manrique, E., Rossi, G., & Levinson, S. C. (2014). Sequence organization: A universal infrastructure for action. Talk presented at the 4th International Conference on Conversation Analysis. University of California at Los Angeles, CA. 2014-06-25 - 2014-06-29.

    Abstract

    The insight that language and other social behavior should be analyzed sequentially – unit-by-unit, turn-by-turn, action-by-action – is arguably the central methodological innovation of conversation analysis. The force of this insight motivated early investigations into the sequential organization of phenomena such as laughter (Jefferson et al. 1977), jokes (Sacks 1974a, 1978), and story-telling (Sacks 1974b; Jefferson 1978). Although sequentiality is a general concern in all conversation-analytic research, it has been the primary object of study in a line of work on one specific form of sequence organization, the adjacency pair (Schegloff 1968, 1972, 1980, 1988, 2007; Schegloff and Sacks 1973). An adjacency pair is a sequential structure of two actions, produced by two participants, where the second action is contingent upon and normatively obliged by the production of the first (e.g., greeting-greeting, question-answer, request-acceptance/rejection). Though not all courses of action are organized through adjacency pairs, adjacency pairs are used to manage many basic social and communicative contingencies, including the transfer of goods, services, and information (offers, requests, statements, questions), and the initiation and termination of social encounters (openings, closings), among others (Schegloff and Sacks 1973). The rich tradition of research on the adjacency pair and its organization has been based almost exclusively on audio and video recordings of social interaction made in the U.S. and U.K. Psychologists warn us that research on WEIRD people, that is, people form Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic societies, may not generalize beyond this niche of outliers to the species as a whole (Henrich et al. 2010). While previous comparative research gives us reason to suspect that, unlike some psychological experiments, the core findings of conversation analysis successfully generalize beyond Anglo-American culture (see, e.g., Sidnell 2007, 2009; Stivers et al. 2009; Dingemanse and Floyd, in press), the linguistic and cultural universality of sequence organization remains an open question. In this talk, we report on a collaborative investigation of sequence organization in 12 languages from distinct linguistic stocks and different geographical areas. We begin with a basic empirical question: Is sequence organization, as described by Schegloff (2007), universal? To answer this, we draw on video recordings of everyday social interaction made in fieldsites across the globe, with speakers of the following languages: ǂAkhoe Haiǀǀom (Khoisan; Namibia), Cha’palaa (Barbacoan; Ecuador), English (Germanic; U.S. and U.K.), Italian (Romance; Italy), Japanese (Japonic; Japan), LSA (sign language; Argentina), Mandarin Chinese (Sinitic; Taiwan), Siwu (Kwa; Ghana), Turkmen (Turkic; Turkmenistan), Tzeltal (Mayan; Mexico), Yélî Dnye (isolate; Papua New Guinea), and Yurakaré (isolate; Bolivia). With the model of sequence organization in English as our point of departure (Schegloff 2007), we examine the structures that the speakers of these languages use to construct courses of action – unit-by-unit, turn-by-turn, action-by-action. While the primary object of study is the adjacency pair and its systematic expansion (Schegloff 2007; Levinson 2013), we also explore culture-specific forms of action-sequencing, such as the proliferation of repetitional post-expansions in Tzeltal, which can span six turns or more, and “broadcasting” in ǂAkhoe Haiǀǀom, in which speakers produce multi-unit tellings that neither occasion displays of recipiency nor solicit responses from those around them. The results of our preliminary investigation reveal that all languages in the sample make use of the basic machinery of the adjacency pair and its expansion. In each language, we observe not only base adjacency pair sequences, but also pre-expansions, insert expansions, and post-expansions, as well as subtypes of these (see Schegloff 2007). The occurrence of these structures across a diverse sample of unrelated languages and cultures leads us to conclude that the structures do not belong to “language” or “culture” per se, but rather to a universal infrastructure for social interaction, an interaction engine (Levinson 2006) that all humans and human societies have in common and for which precursors may even be found among our nearest cousins, the apes (Rossano 2013). In agreement with Schegloff (2006), we propose that these structures emerge as solutions to recurrent socio-interactional problems, which are themselves basic to human sociality.
  • van Leeuwen, T. M., Dingemanse, M., Lockwood, G., & Drijvers, L. (2015). Groot Nationaal Onderzoek (Large National Survey): "How well do your senses work together?". Poster presented at the Donders Sessions, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2013). Expressiveness and system integration. Talk presented at the Grammar of Mimetics Workshop. SOAS, London. 2013-05-10 - 2013-05-11.
  • Dingemanse, M., Torreira, F., & Enfield, N. J. (2013). Form and function of a possibly universal interjection for initiating repair. Talk presented at the Association for Linguistic Typology 10th Biennial Conference (ALT 10). Leipzig, Germany. 2013-08-15 - 2013-08-18.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2013). Conventionalised and creative depictions in interaction. Talk presented at the Workshop on Quotation and Depiction in Interaction. Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 2013-03-08.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2013). Better science through listening to lay people. Talk presented at the Ecsite Annual Conference 2013. Gothenburg, Sweden. 2013-06-06 - 2013-06-08.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2013). Ideofonen: Schilderen met taal. Talk presented at Talk at Taalgala, Grote Taaldag at the occasion of winning the AVT/Anéla Dissertation Award. Utrecht, The Netherlands. 2013-02-08.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2013). Implicational hierarchies and semantic typology: The case of ideophones. Talk presented at the Association for Linguistic Typology 10th Biennial Conference (ALT 10). Leipzig, Germany. 2013-08-15 - 2013-08-18.
  • Dingemanse, M., & Lockwood, G. (2013). Mimetics: A neuroimaging approach. Talk presented at the Sound and Symbolism Workshop 2013. Imai Lab, Keio University Mita, Minato, Japan. 2013-12-13 - 2013-12-14.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2013). The meaning and use of ideophones in Siwu. Poster presented at the 64th Annual Meeting of the Max Planck Society, Potsdam, Germany.
  • Dingemanse, M., Floyd, S., & Rossi, G. (2013). Place reference in story launchings. Talk presented at the Workshop on Place, Landscape, and Language. Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 2013-04-18 - 2013-04-19.

    Abstract

    Stories in conversation often start with references to time, person, and location. We examine the role of place references in story launchings in three different cultures. We find that while any type of place reference can help signal that a story is coming up, different types of place references project different kinds of stories. The rich information evoked by place references makes them an excellent linguistic resource to do scene-setting for the narrated world.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2013). Wetenschapper + weblog. Talk presented at the Vakconferentie Wetenschapscommunicatie 2013. Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 2013-10-01.
  • Enfield, N. J., Dingemanse, M., Rossi, G., Baranova, J., Blythe, J., Drew, P., Floyd, S., Gisladottir, R. S., Levinson, S. C., Kendrick, K. H., Manrique, E., & Roberts, S. G. (2013). Towards a typology of systems of language use: The case of other-initiated repair. Talk presented at the 13th International Pragmatics Conference. New Delhi, India. 2013-09-08 - 2013-09-13.

    Abstract

    This presentation will report on the findings of a large-scale comparative project on other-initiated repair in 12 languages, representing major and minor languages of Europe, Southeast Asia, East Asia, Australia, South America, and Papua New Guinea (and including a sign language). This comparative project is based on a multilanguage corpus of video-recorded interaction in informal settings in homes and villages, among family and friends. Building on findings from qualitative work, a research team in the "Interactional Foundations of Language" Project at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics in Nijmegen has developed a detailed coding scheme for the systematic comparison of other-initiated repair sequences across languages. These languages belong to different language families, have different typological profiles, and are spoken by members of distinctly different cultures. Despite the diversity of languages and cultures represented, the findings of this study show a striking set of commonalities in the sequential and formal organization of other-initiated repair. This lends some support to an ''interactional infrastructure'' hypothesis, which suggests that interactional structures are more likely to be universal than lexico-grammatical structures. At the same time, however, we also observe differences across the languages in how the common system of possibilities for other-initiated repair is used: for example, while most if not all languages allow speakers to use both an interjection ("Huh?") and a WH-word ("What?") strategy for ''open-class other-initiation of repair'', the relative frequency of these strategies varies, with English showing quite common use of ''What?'' for this function, but with many other languages almost exclusively using a ''Huh?'' strategy. The presentation will summarize and explain findings of the coding study, with reference not only to the different strategies available for other-initiation of repair, but also the kinds of repair operations that can be carried out as a function of the choice of repair initiator. There will also be some discussion of the relevance of these results to our understanding of the cultural status of rights and responsibilities in the domain of social agency.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2012). Advances in the cross-linguistic study of ideophones. Talk presented at the Center for Language Studies Colloquium. Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 2012-05-31.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2012). Ideophones and creativity. Talk presented at the 86th Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America. Portland, Oregon. 2012-01-06 - 2012-01-08.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2012). Ideophones at the intersection of theory and methods in African linguistics [plenary lecture]. Talk presented at the 43rd Annual Conference on African Linguistics. New Orleans. 2012-03-15 - 2012-03-17.
  • Dingemanse, M., Torreira, F., & Enfield, N. J. (2012). Huh? The form and semiotics of a possible universal interjection for initiating repair. Talk presented at the CogLingdays 5. Groningen, the Netherlands. 2012-12-14 - 2012-12-15.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2012). Reduplication and expressive morphology in ideophones [plenary lecture]. Talk presented at the workshop Total Reduplication: morphological, pragmatic and typological features. Brussels, Belgium. 2012-11-18 - 2012-11-19.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2012). Show, don’t tell: A multi-methods approach to performance and creativity in ideophones. Talk presented at the 5th Language, Culture & Mind conference (LCM V): Integrating Semiotic Resources in Communication and Creativity. Lisbon, Portugal. 2012-06-27 - 2012-06-29.
  • Dingemanse, M., & Majid, A. (2012). The semantic structure of sensory vocabulary in an African language. Talk presented at the 34th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci 2012). Sapporo, Japan. 2012-08-01 - 2012-08-04.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2012). The semantic structure of sensory vocabulary: Ideophones, imagery, and iconicity. Talk presented at the Workshop on Embodiment and Sound-Symbolism. Keio University, Tokyo. 2012-08-06 - 2012-08-07.
  • Mitterer, H., Schuerman, W. L., Reinisch, E., Tufvesson, S., & Dingemanse, M. (2012). The limited power of sound symbolism. Talk presented at the 18th Annual Conference on Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing (AMLaP 2012). Riva del Garda, Italy. 2012-09-06 - 2012-09-08.

    Abstract

    In defiance of the assumed design principle of language of arbitrariness between sign and signified, many languages use ideophones, which are depictive words for sensory imagery. The form-meaning mappings in ideophones have been variably hypothesized to be language-specific, universal, or a mixture of both. We test the claim of universality, and in particular, the claim that ideophones “do the work of representation by phonetic means” (Tedlock, 1999). In support of this claim, recent research shows that naive listeners can consistently map certain sounds to certain meanings in nonce words, leading to claims that such mappings may underlie the evolution of language (Ramachandran & Hubbard, 2001). Given the theoretical weight ascribed to sound-symbolism in language, it is important to know whether ideophones could live up to this promise. The "recognizability" of these mappings may be due to both segmental and suprasegmental properties of the stimuli. While the segmental properties tend to be singled out, prosodic aspects have not been investigated yet. To critically evaluate the power of lexicalised sound-symbolism in ideophones, we recorded over 200 ideophones from five semantic categories (Sound, Motion, Texture, Visual Appearance, and Shape) and from five languages (Japanese, Korean, Semai, Siwu, Ewe, representing four language families).
  • Dingemanse, M. (2009). Ezra Pound among the Mawu: The everyday poetics of ideophones in a West-African society. Talk presented at 7th International Symposium on Iconicity in Language and Literature. Toronto, Canada. 2009-06-14.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2009). Ideophones in Siwu: New methods and findings. Talk presented at Research Colloquium of the Institut für Afrikanistik. Köln, Germany. 2009-07-15.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2009). How to do things with ideophones: Observations on the use of vivid sensory language in Siwu. Talk presented at SOAS Research Seminar. London. 2009-06-03.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2009). The interaction of syntax and expressivity in Siwu ideophones. Talk presented at 2009 International Conference on Role and Reference Grammar. Berkeley, CA. 2009-08-09.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2009). The semi-Bantu noun class system of Siwu (na-GTM, Ghana). Talk presented at 39th Colloquium on African Languages and Linguistics. Leiden, the Netherlands. 2009-08-24.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2009). What do we really know about ideophones?. Talk presented at 6th World Congress of African Linguistics. Cologne, Germany. 2009-08-20.

Share this page