Arie Verhagen Home

For viewing pdf-files, the Acrobat Reader is required; click: to download it.)

If you know of material not mentioned on this page, please let me know (info arieverhagen.nl)

Paperback edition 2007. Hardback edition 2005.

Reviews

Discussion

In 2005, Constructions of Intersubjectivity was published by Oxford University Press. In 2007, a somewhat extended paperback edition was published (with addition of "Further reading" section and new references).

Below I list some other publications of mine that address specific issues in the domain covered by CoI.

Forthcoming

a	T.b.a.

Published

2008	Intersubjectivity and the architecture of the language system. In: Jordan Zlatev, Timothy P. Racine, Chris Sinha, Esa Itkonen (eds.), The Shared Mind: Perspectives on Intersubjectivity. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 307-331. (Pdf-file) Based on the 2005 book, I discuss the character of the theoretical notion 'intersubjectivity', as it should apparently be construed given the way it is manifested in the structure and use of language. The discussion focuses on evolutionary implications, and the similarities and differences between animal and human communication, again: based on the linguistic analyses in the book.
2007	Construal and perspectivisation. In: D. Geeraerts and H. Cuyckens (eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 48-81. An overview of applications of the concept 'construal' in cognitive linguistics, integrating intersubjectivity into the overall picture.
2006	On subjectivity and ‘long distance Wh-movement’. In: Angeliki Athanasiadou, Costas Canakis & Bert Cornillie (eds), Subjectification: Various Paths to Subjectivity. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 323-346. In chapter 3, on complementation, there is a discussion of the phenomenon that, in traditional terms, a question phrase ('Wh-phrase') sometimes seems to be positioned in a higher clause than the one it is a constituent of. For example, in "How do you think he solved the problem?", "How" asks about the manner of finding a solution, not about thinking. Especially in the generative tradition, this has been taken as important evidence for general properties of grammatical structure, or even of the supposedly innate Universal Grammar. On the basis of corpus evidence, however, I argue that such utterances are licensed by an independent, relatively concrete template, having a specific function in the domain of intersubjective coordination; thus it has no implications for properties of complementation in general. This paper provides a separate discussion of this argument and the evidence, with a brief overvierw of the main theoretical points.
2003a	Semantics, Inferential Cognition, and Understanding Text. In: Ellen van Wolde (ed.). Job 28. Cognition in Context (Biblical Interpretation Series, Volume 64). Leiden: Brill, 231-252. (Pdf-file) Discusses the way the argumentative approach to (especially) the semantics of negation and of connectives may be related to problems of interpretation and translation.
2000a	"The girl that promised to become something": An exploration into diachronic subjectification in Dutch. In: Thomas F. Shannon & Johan P. Snapper (eds.), The Berkeley Conference on Dutch Linguistics 1997: the Dutch Language at the Millennium. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 197-208. (Pdf-file) Explores the historic development of the 'epistemic' or 'evidential' uses of the Dutch verbs 'beloven' (to promise) and 'dreigen' (to threaten), as in 'The debate threatened to get out of hand'.
1995b	Subjectification, syntax, and communication. In: Dieter Stein & Susan Wright (eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation: linguistic perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 103-128. (Pdf-file) This is the first paper in which I demonstrate that argumentativity enters into the explanation of structural grammatical properties of clauses. There is a relation between word order (the two possible positions of the verbs 'beloven' and 'dreigen' wrt non-finite verbs) and the possibility of the verb allowing an epistemic sense, but this relation is asymmetrical (one order only allows one interpretation, the other order allows both), which I relate to a hypothesis about a fundamental asymmetry in semantics: all elements contribute to the argumentative value of an expression, while not all elements have to contribute to its descriptive content.

Below are two publications in Dutch that cover a few of the central notions of CoI.

2002b	Retorica en cognitie. In: Theo Janssen (red.), Taal in gebruik. Een inleiding in de taalwetenschap. Den Haag: Sdu Uitgevers, 97-110. (Pdf-file) Een inleidende beschouwing over de inherente argumentativiteit van taal, gebaseerd op de benadering van Anscombre en Ducrot, in combinatie met de 'Mental Space'-theorie van Fauconnier e.a., zoals die m.n. ook in hoofdstuk 1 (en gedeeltelijk in hoofdstuk 2) van CoI uiteengezet wordt.
2000	Achter het Nederlands. Over interacties tussen taal en achtergrondcognitie. Rede uitgesproken bij de aanvaarding van het ambt van hoogleraar Nederlandse Taalkunde aan de Universiteit Leiden, 24 maart 2000. (Pdf-file). Bevat o.a. een demonstratie van de algemene relevantie van het begrip 'subjectiviteit' en de 'Mental Space'-benadering, aan de hand van een gedeeltelijke analyse van een gedicht van Judith Herzberg, en van de interactie tussen ontkenning en enkele connectieven ('daarom', 'dus', e.d.).