10.36, Calls: Remnant & Feature Movement, Applied Linguistics

[LINGUIST Network]

LINGUIST List:  Vol-10-36. Fri Jan 8 1999. ISSN: 1068-4875.

Subject: 10.36, Calls: Remnant & Feature Movement, Applied Linguistics

Moderators: Anthony Rodrigues Aristar: Wayne State U.<aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Dry: Eastern Michigan U. <hdry at linguistlist.org>
            Andrew Carnie: U. of Arizona <carnie at linguistlist.org>

Reviews: Andrew Carnie: U. of Arizona <carnie at linguistlist.org>

Associate Editors:  Martin Jacobsen <marty at linguistlist.org>
                    Brett Churchill <brett at linguistlist.org>
                    Ljuba Veselinova <ljuba at linguistlist.org>

Assistant Editors:  Scott Fults <scott at linguistlist.org>
		    Jody Huellmantel <jody at linguistlist.org>
		    Karen Milligan <karen at linguistlist.org>

Software development: John H. Remmers <remmers at emunix.emich.edu>
                      Chris Brown <chris at linguistlist.org>

Home Page:  http://linguistlist.org/


Editor for this issue: Karen Milligan <karen at linguistlist.org>
 ==========================================================================

As a matter of policy, LINGUIST discourages the use of abbreviations
or acronyms in conference announcements unless they are explained in
the text.

=================================Directory=================================

1)
Date:  Fri, 08 Jan 1999 18:22:44 +0100
From:  Artemis Alexiadou <artemis at zas.gwz-berlin.de>
Subject:  Workshop on Remnant Movement, Feature-movement and the T-model

2)
Date:  Fri, 8 Jan 1999 14:11:40 -0500 (EST)
From:  Assoc Prof Elizabeth M Knutson <knutson at nadn.navy.mil>
Subject:  Applied Linguistics

-------------------------------- Message 1 -------------------------------

Date:  Fri, 08 Jan 1999 18:22:44 +0100
From:  Artemis Alexiadou <artemis at zas.gwz-berlin.de>
Subject:  Workshop on Remnant Movement, Feature-movement and the T-model

Workshop on Remnant Movement, Feature movement and their implications for
the T-model.

Potsdam University, 24 and 25 July 1999.

During the LOT summer school in Potsdam in July 19-31 1999,
there will be a workhop on Remnant Movement, F(eature)-movement and their
implications for the T-model co-organized by the Linguistics
Department of the University of Potsdam, ZAS Research Center for
General Linguistics, Typology and Universals Berlin, and LOT.

Invited speakers: Hans den Besten, Gisbert Fanselow, Roland
Hinterhoelzl, Hilda Koopman, Howard Lasnik, Gereon Mueller,
(David Pesetsky).

Remnant Movement, F-movement and their implications for
the T-model.

Recent developments in linguistic theory have led to the view that
phrasal movement of the traditional kind is not the only kind of XP
movement. In addition, there are two types of
movements that are not as easy to detect as traditional XP movement,
namely F(-eature) movement and remnant movements based on pied
piping of large portions of structure.

In the Minimalist program (cf. Chomsky 1995), a set of universal
features are is manipulated by the computational system by certain
operations (Feature-Attraction and Move) to generate expressions.
The operation Move involves matching of features between the
target and the raised constituent and generalised
pied piping. On this view, phrasal movement is an exceptional
operation; the conditions under which it takes place are still
unclear, e.g. is it determined by properties of the interfaces?
by properties of the target?
Still, phrasal movement is an operation for which there is clear
evidence while feature movement is more difficult to detect.
The basic argument/evidence for feature movement is locality,
the fact that  certain relations are sensitive to the presence of
 intervening elements, exactly as for the cases of overt movement.

In a framework where XP movement
can either be phrasal movement or feature movement, a natural
question that arises concerns the necessity of the distinction
between overt and  covert
movements. In Chomsky 1995 it was assumed that overt movement is
phrasal while covert movement is FF movement and that this
distinction is determined by properties of the PF interface. Another
theoretical possibility however is to deny the T model and assume
that all movements take place overtly. This is
actually the line that Chomsky takes in his 1998 paper. He also
 replaces FF movement by Agree, which does not require actual
movement for Checking reasons. Others have argued, however, that
the T model is required  (Richards
1997, Sauerland 1998). Recently, Pesetsky 1998 has argued that there
 is both covert XP movement and covert FF movement and that the
 two can be distinguished on
the basis of ACDs and special kinds of intervention effects that
restrict covert FF movement but not covert XP movement.

Remnant movement has the following general format:
[ZP ... t1 ...]2 ... X1 ... t2 X moves from a larger constituent ZP,
 and subsequently ZP, containing
the trace of X, moves higher up. This type of operation has been
around since the mid-eighties. An example is Den Besten and
 Webelhuth's (1987) analysis of VP-topicalization in German and Dutch,
 involving scrambling of one or more arguments out of VP and
 subsequent movement of the remnant VP. The role of Remnant Movement
 has become increasingly important
recently, specially in analyses that assumes Kayne's antisymmetry or
 a variant
thereof. Thus, remnant movement has been proposed for constructions
that used to be analyzed as rightward movement (e.g., HNPS, Right
 Dislocation). While Antisymmetry considerably restricts possible
syntactic structures,
it necessitates more complex movement operations. Most importantly,
however, the assumption that such complex movement
operations exist may also lead to abandoning the T-model, as is e.g.
 the case in Kayne 1998.
 However, questions like the following have yet not be settled: e.g.
the triggers and landing sites for Remnant Movement are unclear. The
 issue of the types of constituents that can move as a remnant is not
 settled. How do we explain categorial differences (e.g., Den
Besten observes that VP-remnants in Dutch can move but PP-remnants
cannot)? Furthermore, to which extent has (un)grammaticality of
remnant movement to do with the proper binding of traces in the
remnant? Additionally, when all material has moved out of a remnant
X except for one constituent Y, how do we distinguish between movement
 of X and  movement
of Y (e.g., modification, stranded material)? In view of this, which
cases of constituent movement need to/can be reanalyzed as remnant
movement?
Is it possible to reanalyze alleged violations of the HMC in terms
of remnant movement (e.g, Rivero 1994)?

By and large, the proposals mentioned above have been motivated by
theory-internal considerations.
As we saw, there have also been attempts to
provide concrete diagnostics
for the existence or not of such movements
but in many cases, it is not clear what kind of empirical evidence
 one can appeal to in order to justify the choice of a particular
 style of movement over another.

The question that arises concerns the properties of various movement
types,
as well as the relation between the existence of these operations and
the
model of Grammar one would need to assume.

Abstracts
Abstracts are invited for 35 minutes talks (with an additional 10
minutes
for discussion).

Abstracts should be anonymous and should be no longer than two pages,
 with
margins of
at least 1-inch, font size 11. Submissions are limited to a maximum
of one
individual and one
joint abstract per author. Please provide 4 anonymous abstracts and
 one
camera ready original.

Deadline for abstract submission: April 1, 1999.

Abstracts should be sent:

Workshop on Movement
c/o Artemis Alexiadou
ZAS
Jaegerstr. 10/11
10117 Berlin
Germany
e-mail: artemis at zas.gwz-berlin.de

Organizing committee: Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou,
Sjef Barbiers and Hans-Martin Gaertner.

For information on the summer school visit:
http://www.ling.uni-potsdam.de/lot/
http://wwwlot.let.uu.nl/home.htm




-------------------------------- Message 2 -------------------------------

Date:  Fri, 8 Jan 1999 14:11:40 -0500 (EST)
From:  Assoc Prof Elizabeth M Knutson <knutson at nadn.navy.mil>
Subject:  Applied Linguistics

Call for Papers

Modern Language Association 1999 Convention
Division on Applied Linguistics
Chicago, Illinois
27-30 December 1999

The Division on Applied Linguistics is sponsoring three separate sessions.

Session 1:  Cross-Cultural Pragmatics in Spoken and Written Discourse

This session explores the culture-specific dimensions of speech acts
and/or the composition of written texts.  Papers should report on original
research or make connections between research, theory, and teaching
practice.

Session 2:  Language Acquisition and Content-based Language Instruction:
What Does Research Have to Say?

This session reveals what research tells us about the consequences for
language acquisition of integrating the study of language and content.
Papers can report on research concerning foreign language across the
curriculum (FLAC) programs or content-based instruction within the foreign
language departmental curriculum.

Session 3:  The Role of Applied Linguistics in Departments of Language and
Literature

This session explores the political, intellectual, and professional
differences and/or common ground between the fields of applied
linguistics, literature, and cultural studies.  Papers may consider issues
relating to department structure, professional development and
preparation, or interdisciplinary communication and relationships.

Send one-page blind abstracts, with cover sheet indicating presenter's
contact information, to

Elizabeth Knutson
7011 Wake Forest Drive
College Park, MD 20740
phone 410 293-6365
fax 410 293-2729
e-mail:  knutson at arctic.nadn.navy.mil

Faxes and e-mail submissions will be accepted if followed up by a hard
copy.  Please send plain text e-mail (rather than attachments).

Deadline for submissions:  March 1, 1999

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-10-36