Edited Books by Camille Simon
Actes des 16èmes Rencontres Jeunes Chercheurs en Sciences du Langage : Modèles et modélisation dans les sciences du langage
[FR] Comment appréhender la diversité du réel sans chercher à la structurer et à formuler des règ... more [FR] Comment appréhender la diversité du réel sans chercher à la structurer et à formuler des règles supposées expliquer ou du moins décrire son fonctionnement ? Comment comprendre un phénomène sans d'abord en concevoir des fonctionnements possibles ? Même si le recours à une réalité idéale ne suffit pas toujours à la compréhension d'un phénomène langagier, d'un fonctionnement psychologique ou encore d'une stratégie cognitive, la construction et l'exploitation de modèles apparaît souvent nécessaire. Tout comme apparaît nécessaire la remise en cause et la révision de ces représentations, afin d'appréhender des réalités plus nuancés. La diversité des disciplines regroupées sous l'intitulé "sciences du langage" encourage à envisager le terme de "modèle" dans des acceptions bien différentes. Par exemple, un psycholinguiste proposant un modèle pour rendre compte de la réalité cognitivo-psychologique du lecteur ne voit pas la notion de modèle de la même manière qu'un sémioticien quand il parle de "lecteur modèle" (Eco, 1985). De même, les modèles syntaxiques n'ont pas la même fonction en traitement automatique des langues qu'en linguistique descriptive. La multiplicité des approches adoptées par les différentes disciplines engage à interroger non seulement la notion de modèle, mais aussi la modélisation des données langagières, que ce soit à des fins descriptives, explicatives ou prédictives. On peut donc s'intéresser aux différentes définitions du modèle, et se pencher sur leur mise en pratique, leur potentiel transdisciplinaire et leurs éventuelles transformations. On peut aussi s'interroger sur la pertinence et les limites de ces modèles, voire de la notion même de modèle. Selon les approches des chercheur-e-s, le modèle peut ainsi être perçu comme une nécessité ou comme un obstacle, comme un indice de rigueur ou comme un biais scientifique. S'agit-il d'un carcan théorique auquel les données empiriques doivent s'ajuster ? Ou s'agit-il d'une construction sans laquelle la dynamique et le fonctionnement d'une réalité seraient impossible à appréhender ?
[EN] How do we grasp the variety of reality without trying to establish a structure and formulate rules supposed to explain or describe the way it works? How do we understand a phenomenon without first trying to conceive its possible operations? Even if the use of an abstract framing is not always enough for comprehending a given linguistic phenomenon, psychological process or cognitive strategy, the construction and utilisation of models often appears necessary - just as it is necessary to question and revise existing models, in order to apprehend ever more finely grained phenomena. Because of the varied disciplines grouped under the heading "language sciences", the very word "model" is to be understood in different senses. For instance, the psycholinguist proposing a model to account for the psycho-cognitive process of the reader does not conceive the model in the same way as the semiotician speaking about the "model reader" (Eco, 1979). In the same way syntactic models have different functions in natural language processing and in descriptive linguistics. The many approaches of the varied disciplines lead to question regarding not only the notion of "model" but also the activity of modeling linguistic data, depending on descriptive, explanatory or predictive purposes. Thus, the various definitions of "model" are of interest, together with their application, their transdisciplinary potentialities and their possible transformations. The questions of the relevance and limits of these models are also of interest, as is the issue of the very notion of "model". According to the different approaches adopted by researchers, the model can be considered as a necessity, or an obstacle, as a sign of rigor or as a scientific bias. Is it a theoretical restraint into the empirical data must fit in with? Or is it an abstract construction required to understand the dynamics and functioning of a any given phenomenon or linguistic fact?
Book Chapters by Camille Simon
Edinburgh Handbook of Evaluative Morphology, 2015
Most researchers see Tibetan as a member of a language family which also includes Burmese and Chi... more Most researchers see Tibetan as a member of a language family which also includes Burmese and Chinese; this family is known by names including 'Tibeto-Burman', 'Sino-Tibetan', and 'Trans-Himalayan', of which the last is the most neutral and accurate (cf. van Driem 2012). In 650 Tibetan was reduced to writing as an administrative exigency of running the Old Tibetan empire; the earliest extant documents date from a century later (Hill 2010: 110-112). Tibetan linguistic history is conventionally divided between Old Tibetan (eleventh century and earlier) and Classical Tibetan (later texts). Tibetan boasts a vast literature with a wide variety of genres, and the family of Tibetic languages spoken today is comparable in size and diversity to the Romance languages (Tournadre 2008: 282-283). Lhasa Tibetan is the language spoken in the city of Lhasa, the cultural and historical centre of the Tibetan speaking area; this dialect is closely affiliated with the other Central Tibetic languages (Ü-kä, Dbus-skad). Different morphosyntactic processes are attested in Lhasa Tibetan, to express evaluative semantics.ii In addition to diminutive and intensive formations, Lhasa Tibetan also has honorifics, which express an evaluation by the speaker.
Papers by Camille Simon
This paper outlines Tibetan morphosyntactic features transferred into two genetically unrelated a... more This paper outlines Tibetan morphosyntactic features transferred into two genetically unrelated and typologically distinct languages, Salar (Turkic) and Wutun (Sinitic), both spoken in the same linguistic area, the Amdo Sprachbund located in the Upper Yellow River basin in Western China. 1 Due to long-term linguistic contact with Amdo Tibetan, the culturally dominant language in the region, Salar and Wutun have undergone many parallel convergence processes, and they have developed shared grammatical features not found in their genetic relatives spoken elsewhere. By comparing the grammatical structures transferred from Tibetan into both Salar and Wutun, we aim to identify the most prominent Tibetan grammatical features that tend to be copied into neighboring languages despite their different genetic affiliations and typo-logical profiles. Our study highlights the role of Tibetan as the dominant language of the Sprachbund, serving as a model for linguistic convergence for its neighboring languages.
Uploads
Edited Books by Camille Simon
[EN] How do we grasp the variety of reality without trying to establish a structure and formulate rules supposed to explain or describe the way it works? How do we understand a phenomenon without first trying to conceive its possible operations? Even if the use of an abstract framing is not always enough for comprehending a given linguistic phenomenon, psychological process or cognitive strategy, the construction and utilisation of models often appears necessary - just as it is necessary to question and revise existing models, in order to apprehend ever more finely grained phenomena. Because of the varied disciplines grouped under the heading "language sciences", the very word "model" is to be understood in different senses. For instance, the psycholinguist proposing a model to account for the psycho-cognitive process of the reader does not conceive the model in the same way as the semiotician speaking about the "model reader" (Eco, 1979). In the same way syntactic models have different functions in natural language processing and in descriptive linguistics. The many approaches of the varied disciplines lead to question regarding not only the notion of "model" but also the activity of modeling linguistic data, depending on descriptive, explanatory or predictive purposes. Thus, the various definitions of "model" are of interest, together with their application, their transdisciplinary potentialities and their possible transformations. The questions of the relevance and limits of these models are also of interest, as is the issue of the very notion of "model". According to the different approaches adopted by researchers, the model can be considered as a necessity, or an obstacle, as a sign of rigor or as a scientific bias. Is it a theoretical restraint into the empirical data must fit in with? Or is it an abstract construction required to understand the dynamics and functioning of a any given phenomenon or linguistic fact?
Book Chapters by Camille Simon
Papers by Camille Simon
[EN] How do we grasp the variety of reality without trying to establish a structure and formulate rules supposed to explain or describe the way it works? How do we understand a phenomenon without first trying to conceive its possible operations? Even if the use of an abstract framing is not always enough for comprehending a given linguistic phenomenon, psychological process or cognitive strategy, the construction and utilisation of models often appears necessary - just as it is necessary to question and revise existing models, in order to apprehend ever more finely grained phenomena. Because of the varied disciplines grouped under the heading "language sciences", the very word "model" is to be understood in different senses. For instance, the psycholinguist proposing a model to account for the psycho-cognitive process of the reader does not conceive the model in the same way as the semiotician speaking about the "model reader" (Eco, 1979). In the same way syntactic models have different functions in natural language processing and in descriptive linguistics. The many approaches of the varied disciplines lead to question regarding not only the notion of "model" but also the activity of modeling linguistic data, depending on descriptive, explanatory or predictive purposes. Thus, the various definitions of "model" are of interest, together with their application, their transdisciplinary potentialities and their possible transformations. The questions of the relevance and limits of these models are also of interest, as is the issue of the very notion of "model". According to the different approaches adopted by researchers, the model can be considered as a necessity, or an obstacle, as a sign of rigor or as a scientific bias. Is it a theoretical restraint into the empirical data must fit in with? Or is it an abstract construction required to understand the dynamics and functioning of a any given phenomenon or linguistic fact?