<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;"><!-- P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} --></style>
</head>
<body dir="ltr">
<div id="divtagdefaultwrapper" dir="ltr" style="font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif, EmojiFont, "Apple Color Emoji", "Segoe UI Emoji", NotoColorEmoji, "Segoe UI Symbol", "Android Emoji", EmojiSymbols;">
<p style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0"></p>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif,serif,EmojiFont; font-size:16px">
<span style="font-size:12pt">Here is a revised schedule for the 27th South of England LFG meeting, Saturday, 9 February 2019 in Room 4426, SOAS, London. The second slot is a discussion session led by <span>Kersti Börjars, and we are looking forward to everyone's
thoughts on this issue. </span>More information can be found at the main SE-LFG site: sg.sg/se-lfg (or https://sites.google.com/site/selfgmeetings/home/). We look forward to welcoming you to the meeting!</span><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif,serif,EmojiFont; font-size:16px">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif,serif,EmojiFont; font-size:16px">
Meeting agenda:</div>
<br>
<p></p>
<p style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0"></p>
<div style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif; font-size:13.3333px"><b style="line-height:22px"><font size="3">11:00-12:00: Oliver Bond, Surrey: Clause level features</font></b></div>
<span style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif; font-size:13.3333px">Conventional theories of agreement and government cannot always adequately account for the distribution of morphosyntactic feature values across multiple targets/governees within the same
clause. In this paper, I examine the evidence surrounding the existence of 'clause-level' features, drawing on data from Australian and Nakh-Daghestanian languages.</span>
<p style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif; font-size:13.3333px"></p>
<div style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif; font-size:13.3333px"><b style="line-height:22px"><font size="3">12:00-12:45: Kersti Börjars, Manchester: Noun phrases and GFs</font></b></div>
<span style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif; font-size:13.3333px">Noun phrases have not been quite as well studied in LFG as clauses, though there are notable exceptions to this generalization (e.g. articles in Butt & King (eds) 2003, agreement especially
under co-ordination (King and Dalrymple 2004), argument structure of noun phrases (Laszkó 2007), and too many others to mention here). In this discussion paper, I would like to consider the role of grammatical functions in noun phrases. In nominalisations
that closely parallel a verbal version such as the well-known example in (1), it may seem clear that the grammatical relations should also be mirrored. </span>
<div style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif; font-size:13.3333px"> (1) a. the army’s destruction of the city </div>
<div style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif; font-size:13.3333px"> b. The army destroyed the city. </div>
<div style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif; font-size:13.3333px"> A possessor functions much like a subject in relation to some binding properties, so the assumption that the army is a SUBJ in (1a) to parallel (1b) seems reasonable. But what do we do
with <i>of the city</i>, is it really a PP OBJ? Another issue arises with (2a), where a comparison with (1b) would lead to the conclusion that the possessor is an OBJ. Or the famously ambiguous (or vague) example in (2b). </div>
<div style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif; font-size:13.3333px"> (2) a. the city’s destruction </div>
<div style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif; font-size:13.3333px"> b. Oscar’s photograph </div>
<div style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif; font-size:13.3333px"> In the LFG literature, noun-phrase specific functions have been proposed in order to distinguish functions in the noun phrase from those at clause level, for instance POSS, SPEC and NCOMP.
In this slot, I will present some further data with reference to the literature, but most of all I am interested in a discussion of the role of grammatical relations in the noun phrase, how important are the parallels with verbal constituents, can data from
languages not considered in this literature can help us make choices etc.
<p></p>
<div><b style="line-height:22px"><font size="3">2:00-3:00: Ryo Otoguro, Waseda University: Formulating controller selection in non-canonical agreement</font></b></div>
Based on the empirical findings on a range of agreement patterns found in the literature, I argue that distinct principles are working behind agreement controller selection depending on the characteristics of clause structure across languages. I particularly
focus on so-called proxy agreement and left-edge agreement and show how controller selection for those non-canonical agreement can be formulated in LFG.
<p></p>
<div><b style="line-height:22px"><font size="3">3:00-3:30: Alex Biswas, Oxford: French verbal periphrasis: composé and surcomposé tenses</font></b></div>
An analysis of stacked periphrases found in French which makes use of m-structure to encode the collocational requirements of each component of the periphrase. Unlike many previous analyses of periphrasis, the morphological component still produces single words,
but encodes m-structure constraints on those words which describe the relationship between the auxiliary and lexical elements of the periphrase.</div>
<br>
<p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>