19 International Symposium on Theoretical and Applied Linguistics ...

G E N E R A L S E S S I O N
Asher and Lascarides (2003) among others attempt to formalize the interaction between discourse
and lexical semantic knowledge. For instance, in (1), the denotation of the causing part of the verb
σπάζω (=break) in the first sentence is elaborated on by two verbs that denote two different events,
namely σπρώχνω (=push) and πέφτω (=fall). In (1), there is no conjunction and therefore, there is no
indication as to how the two sentences comprise a coherent discourse.
(1) Ο Γιάννης έσπασε το ποτήρι. Έσπρωξε το τραπέζι και αυτό έπεσε.
John broke the glass. He pushed the table and (then) it fell.
Two apparently irrelevant events in the second sentence, the pushing and the falling, are able to pick
out the causing part of the verbal denotation. The question that emerges then is: what is the status of
the causing sub-event? Should we assume that a sub-event is decomposed into other events
arbitrarily? Is there any criterion for identifying parts of the breaking with the pushing of the table and
the falling of the glass events? The paradox that appears here is that one event can be identified with
arbitrarily many parts and that it stands in straightforward contradiction of its own status; namely that it
is a term with ontological integrity.
I suggest that events should not be rejected altogether under the light of these questions, but that
summation of their parts with the same ontological status is not the right way to proceed. It has been
noticed throughout the literature (a.o. Davidson <strong>19</strong>67, Kamp and Reyle <strong>19</strong>93, Higginbotham 2000) that
there is no theory that can provide clear identity and identification criteria for saying whether the sum
of the two events, of the pushing of the table and falling of the glass can be identified with the causing
of the breaking. A way out of the paradoxical situation comes when one recognizes the fact that the
verb denotes an event, but that its parts are not of the same status. Since there is no clear-cut
criterion for identifying parts of an event, I assume that the parts of an event are conceptual
construals. Their main purpose is to pick parts of the spatiotemporal continuum that can be thought of
as causing the breaking in a specific context. For this analysis I will use the discourse-sensitive
strategy of Asher and Lascarides (2003) in order to demonstrate the advantages of using discourse
entities or labels of information implied by a verb and that are available for discourse inference.
References
Alsina, A. <strong>19</strong>96. The Role of Argument Structure in Grammar. CSLI Publications.
Asher, N. <strong>19</strong>93. Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Asher, N. and Lascarides, A. 2003. Logics of Conversation. Cambridge University Press.
Davidson, D. <strong>19</strong>67. The Logical Form of Action Sentences. In N. Rescher (ed.), The Logic of Decision and Action.
University of Pittsburgh Press, reprinted in Davidson, 2001a.
Hale, K. and Keyser, J. <strong>19</strong>93. On argument structure and the lexical representation of syntactic relations. In K.
Hale and J. Keyser (eds), The View from Building 20, MIT Press.
Higginbotham, J. 2000. On events in linguistic semantics. In J. Higginbotham, F. Pianesi and A. C. Varzi (eds),
Speaking of Events. Oxford University Press.
Kamp, H. and Reyle, U. <strong>19</strong>93. From Discourse to Logic: Introduction to Model-theoretic Semantics of Natural
Language, Formal Logic and Discourse Representation Theory. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Kratzer, A. <strong>19</strong>96. Severing the External Argument from its Verb. In J. Rooryck and L. Zaring (eds.), Phrase
Structure and the Lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Levin, B. and M. Rappaport Hovav <strong>19</strong>99. Two Structures for Compositionally Derived Events. Proceedings of
SALT 9. Cornell Linguistics Circle Publications.
Levin, B. and M. Rappaport Hovav 2005. Argument Realization. Cambridge University Press.
Pustejovsky, J. <strong>19</strong>95. The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Ramchand, G. 2008. Verb Meaning and The Lexicon: A First Phase Syntax. Cambridge University Press.
Impact of a high-stakes English exam
on teachers and students' perceptions, attitudes and practices
Dina Tsagari
Hellenic Open University
tsagaric@otenet.gr
High-stakes language examinations have important consequences on the curriculum, teaching and
learning. They are often used as instruments that can leverage educational change. The First
Certificate in English (FCE by Cambridge ESOL) is a well-known language exam that is administered
widely in private language institutions in Greece. Its designers are interested in strengthening the
relationship between teaching and testing by attempting to bring FCE in line with recent developments
in the fields of linguistics and applied linguistics so as to have a positive influence on what happens in
the classroom.
This paper explores the relationship between the intentions of the FCE exam designers and the
teachers and students who are preparing for the exam. It presents findings of teachers and students’
<strong>19</strong> th ISTAL 55