19.2320, Calls: Syntax,Morphology,Phonology,Semantics/France;Lang Acq/France

LINGUIST Network linguist at LINGUISTLIST.ORG
Tue Jul 22 15:54:16 UTC 2008


LINGUIST List: Vol-19-2320. Tue Jul 22 2008. ISSN: 1068 - 4875.

Subject: 19.2320, Calls: Syntax,Morphology,Phonology,Semantics/France;Lang Acq/France

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Eastern Michigan U <aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Aristar-Dry, Eastern Michigan U <hdry at linguistlist.org>
 
Reviews: Randall Eggert, U of Utah  
         <reviews at linguistlist.org> 

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, 
and donations from subscribers and publishers.

Editor for this issue: F. Okki Kurniawan <okki 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.

To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at 
http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.html. 


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

1)
Date: 22-Jul-2008
From: Orin Percus < sdl.direction at yahoo.fr >
Subject: The 32nd GLOW Colloquium 

2)
Date: 22-Jul-2008
From: Orin Percus < sdl.direction at yahoo.fr >
Subject: GLOW 2009 Acquisition Workshop

 

	
-------------------------Message 1 ---------------------------------- 
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 11:50:27
From: Orin Percus [sdl.direction at yahoo.fr]
Subject: The 32nd GLOW Colloquium
E-mail this message to a friend:
http://linguistlist.org/issues/emailmessage/verification.cfm?iss=19-2320.html&submissionid=185123&topicid=3&msgnumber=1  

Full Title: The 32nd GLOW Colloquium 
Short Title: GLOW 2009 

Date: 16-Apr-2009 - 18-Apr-2009
Location: Nantes, France 
Contact Person: Hamida Demirdache
Meeting Email: hamida.demirdache at univ-nantes.fr
Web Site: http://www.lettres.univ-nantes.fr/lling/glow32/ 

Linguistic Field(s): Applied Linguistics; Morphology; Phonology; Semantics; Syntax 

Call Deadline: 01-Nov-2008 

Meeting Description:

GLOW 2009 
The 32nd GLOW Colloquium 
April 16-18, 2009 
At the University of Nantes 
Laboratoire de Linguistique de Nantes LLING EA 3827 
Nantes, France

Deadline for two-page abstracts: November 1, 2008 

Theme, Main Session: 
On the Architecture of the Grammar: Y, if and how 

First Call for Papers

Invited speakers:
Danny Fox, MIT
Paul Smolensky, John Hopkins University

Deadline for submissions: November 1, 2008.

Abstracts are invited for a 45-minute presentation (excluding discussion) on the
theme below. Abstracts should be submitted online, in PDF format, without the
name of the author(s). 

Submission details (Further details for submission will be available soon):
Abstracts may not exceed two pages of text with at least a one-inch margin on
all four sides (measured on A4 paper) and must employ a font not smaller than 12
point. Each page may include a maximum of 50 lines of text, including examples.
Examples should not be collected on a separate page. Abstracts may include an
extra page for references (not examples), but this third page will not be
published in the spring newsletter. Submitters whose computers are not
envisioning A4 paper should adjust their margin sizes in order to achieve a text
box similar to that on A4 with 1'' margins (e.g. those using the American 81/2''
x 11'' size should use wider left and right margins (1.13'' or 2.85 cm), and may
use smaller top and bottom margins (0.6'' or 1.5 cm)). This is especially
important for the printing of the spring GLOW newsletter.

You may submit one single-authored and one co-authored abstract, or two
co-authored abstracts but not with the same co-authors. You may not submit the
same abstract to the Colloquium and to one of the GLOW workshops.  Authors whose
abstracts are shortlisted but not selected will have the opportunity to present
their paper as a poster.

Description:

Accounting for the link between sound and meaning means, among other things,
describing how the articulatory-perceptual system works, describing how the
system responsible for informational content works, and describing how the two
manage to interact. The Y model is one model of the interaction. The classical Y
model assumes the presence of a ''syntactic'' component that is the sole locus
of recursive structure generation, and two distinct interpretive components
between which syntax is the sole connecting link. Many fundamental architectural
issues emerge in comparing the Y model with its alternatives. 

1. What is the precise articulation of the Y model? 
For instance, at how many points should we imagine that the external systems are
able to access ''syntactic'' information? The question arises, in particular, in
light of current variants of the Y model -- e.g. multiple spell out, continuous
access to PF and LF, single cycle grammar. What are the empirical and conceptual
arguments against/for the classic Y model, and against/for its competitors
today? When it comes to accounting for facts in terms of what is happening on a
given branch, how much should be attributed to the ''syntactic'' portion of the
branch and how much to the operation of the interpretive system? For example, in
explaining how sentences with quantifiers receive their interpretation, one
could posit that there is QR in the syntax, or that the interpretive system
itself adjusts the structure or arrives at the interpretation via type shifting.
Similar questions arise in cases where there is an apparent mismatch between
syntactic constituents and prosodic constituents (Nespor and Vogel 1986,
Truckenbrodt 1999, 2007). Does that readjustment take place on the syntax side
or within the phonology? Likewise, in the domain of morphology, how much of word
formation is accomplished in the ''syntax'' proper and how much is accomplished
by other components?

2. The architecture of the interacting systems that the Y model supposes. 
Is syntax -- as opposed to the mechanisms that give us phonological and semantic
representations -- the only mechanism that operates recursively? What evidence
could bear on this issue? What are the consequences, for example for theories of
word formation, word meaning and the lexicon? Should the scope of syntax extend
into the traditional lexicon / morphology domain, to account for recursive
aspects of word meaning and formation (e.g. Marantz 1997, Harley & Noyer 1998,
Alexiadou 2001, Hale & Keyser 2002, Borer 2005, Ramchand 2008)? If morphology is
in the syntax, how can its distinctive character be derived (e.g., through to
the insertion of morphophonological information into syntax, trading
hierarchical structure for adjacency, Embick and Noyer 2001)? The same questions
arise for other domains. For instance, it has been proposed that phonological
words and phonological phrases (but not, for instance syllables or words), can
have recursive structure (Selkirk 1995, Gussenhoven 2005). It may be no
coincidence that the word and the phrase interface with the syntactic structure
most directly. If on the other hand there are different recursive components to
language, in what respects do they resemble each other, in what respects do they
differ, and why (Jackendoff 2002, Ackema and Neeleman 2007)?

3. Syntax and the interpretive systems 
Within the Y model, the syntax feeds the systems of interpretation and
realization. To what extent can syntax be seen as ''subservient'' to the
external systems? To what extent is it the case that syntactic computation is
motivated by the need to satisfy input conditions of the interfacing systems? On
one extreme version of the position that syntax is ''subservient'' to the
interpretive systems, the syntax produces all and only interpretable structures
-- there is a perfect match.  What consequences would this have for our view of
syntax? What evidence could bear on whether it is correct? To what extent can
the syntax access information of the kind that the external systems provide? For
instance, on the PF side, syntax has been argued to be sensitive to phonological
content (Holmberg 2000, Chomsky 2001), linearization (Fox and Pesestsky, Moro
2000, Uriagereka 1999), prosody (Krifka 1998, Szendroi 2001, Jackendoff 2002),
or morphological diacritics (Embick 2000). On the LF side, syntax has been
argued to be sensitive to the meanings contributed by logical terms (Fox 2000).
What aspects of meaning, if any, influence syntactic movement? Is there a
limited look-ahead that allows syntax to be driven by effects on the output?
What is evidence for the autonomy of syntax? What syntactic operations can be
seen as readjustment processes to meet interface conditions that would otherwise
be violated (be it on the PF or LF side)? Similar questions can be asked
internal to the modules themselves if the systems on the PF side comprise a
morphological subsystem and a phonological subsystem, are they informationally
encapsulated or do they ''talk'' to each other (Scheer 2008)?

4. How do alternative models compare with the Y model (for example, Jackendoff's
2002 parallel architecture with multiple generative components)? Is the role of
phonology and semantics purely interpretive? Can phonology and semantics
interact in a way that is not mediated by syntax? In particular, what is the
best account for the correlation between phonological phenomena such as
intonation or destressing and aspects of semantic interpretation (Gussenhoven
2008, Szendroi 2005, Reinhart 2006)? In models that assume interaction between
the interpretive components outside syntax, what kinds of interaction need to be
assumed? What is the (strongest) evidence that the syntax feeds the external
systems? Many of the analyses mentioned in (3) crucially make reference to how
the interpretive systems would treat a particular structure that the syntax
creates. Can the same facts be accounted for naturally by other approaches?

Selected references
Ackema, P, Neeleman, A. 2007. Morphology Syntax. In The Oxford handbook of
linguistic interfaces, ed. G. Ramchand and C. Reiss. OUP.
Alexiadou, A. 2001. Functional structure in nominals: nominalization and
ergativity. John Benjamins.
Borer, H. 2005. Structuring sense. OUP
Chomsky, N. 2000. New horizons in the study of language and mind. MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. M.
Kenstowicz. MIT Press.
Embick, D, Noyer, R. 2001. Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32.
Embick, D. 2000. Features, syntax, and categories in the Latin perfect.
Linguistic Inquiry 31.
Embick, D., Marantz, A. 2008. Architecture and blocking. Linguistic Inquiry 39.
Gussenhoven, C. 2005. Procliticized phonological phrases in English: Evidence
from rhythm. Studia Linguistica 59.
Gussenhoven, C. 2008. Semantic judgments as evidence for the intonational
structure of Dutch. Prosody 2008. In Prosodic Phonology, ed. M. Nespor and I.
Vogel. Foris: Dordrecht.
Fox, D. 2000. Economy and semantic interpretation. MIT Press.
Fox, D. Nissenbaum, J. 1999. Extraposition and Scope: A case for overt QR. In
Proceedings of WCCFL 18.
Fox, D. Pestsky, D. Cyclic Linearization and the typology of movement, ms., MIT.
Hale, K. & Keyser, J. 2002. Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure. MIT
Press.
Harley, H. and R. Noyer 1998. Mixed nominalizations, object shift and short verb
movement in English. In Proceedings of NELS 28.
Holmberg, A. 2000. Scandinavian stylistic fronting. Linguistic Inquiry 31.
Jackendoff, R. 2002. Foundations of language. OUP.
Krifka, M. 1998. Scope-inversion under the rise-fall contour in German.
Linguistic Inquiry 29.
Marantz, A. 1997. No Escape from Syntax: Don't try morphological analysis in the
privacy of your own lexicon. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Penn Linguistics
Colloquium: Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 4, Dimitriadis, A. et al. (eds.),
p. 201-225.
Moro, A. 2000. Dynamic antisymmetry. MIT Press.
Pinker, S., Jackendoff, R. 2005. The faculty of language: What's special about
it? Cognition 95.
Pustejovsky, J. 1995. The generative lexicon. MIT Press
Ramchand, G. 2008. Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first phase syntax. Cambridge
Studies in Linguistics.
Reinhart, T. 2006. Interface strategies. MIT Press.
Roeper, T. 2004. Nominalization: how a nominal construction reveals primary
principles. In Handbook of Morphology, ed. R. Lieber and P. Stekauer. Kluwer.
Scheer, T. 2008. A lateral theory of phonology. Part II. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
Selkirk, E. O. 1995. The prosodic structure of function words. In University of
Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18: Papers on Optimality Theory,
ed. J. Beckman, L. Walsh Dickey and S. Urbanczyk. University of Massachusetts.
Amherst: Graduate Linguistic Student Association.
Szendroi, K. 2005. Focus movement (with special reference to Hungarian). In The
Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Vol. II, Case 26.
Truckenbrodt, H. 1999. On the relation between syntactic phrases and
phonological phrases. Linguistic Inquiry 30.
Truckenbrodt, H. 2007. The syntax-phonology interface. In The Cambridge Handbook
of Phonology, ed. Paul de Lacy. Cambridge: CUP.
Uriagereka, J. 1999. Multiple spell-out. In Working minimalism, ed. S. D.
Epstein and N. Hornstein. MIT Press.



	
-------------------------Message 2 ---------------------------------- 
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 11:50:34
From: Orin Percus [sdl.direction at yahoo.fr]
Subject: GLOW 2009 Acquisition Workshop 
E-mail this message to a friend:
http://linguistlist.org/issues/emailmessage/verification.cfm?iss=19-2320.html&submissionid=185126&topicid=3&msgnumber=2 
	

Full Title: GLOW 2009 Acquisition Workshop 

Date: 15-Apr-2009 - 15-Apr-2009
Location: Nantes, France 
Contact Person: Hamida Demirdache
Meeting Email: hamida.demirdache at univ-nantes.fr
Web Site: http://www.lettres.univ-nantes.fr/lling/glow32/ 

Linguistic Field(s): Language Acquisition; Morphology; Semantics; Syntax 

Call Deadline: 01-Nov-2008 

Meeting Description:

GLOW 2009 
At the University of Nantes 
Laboratoire de Linguistique de Nantes LLING EA 3827 
Nantes, France 

GLOW Workshops 
April 15 
Workshop in Language Acquisition: Acquisition at the Syntax-Semantics Interface 

Firts Call for Papers

GLOW 2009 Acquisition Workshop

April 15, 2009

Theme: Acquisition at the Syntax Semantics Interface

Invited speaker: 
Colin Philips, University of Maryland

Deadline for submissions: November 1, 2008.

Abstracts are invited for a 45-minute presentation (excluding discussion) on the
theme below. Abstracts should be submitted online, in PDF format, without the
name of the author(s). 

Submission details (further details for submission will be available soon):

Abstracts may not exceed two pages of text with at least a one-inch margin on
all four sides (measured on A4 paper) and must employ a font not smaller than 12
point. Each page may include a maximum of 50 lines of text, including examples.
Examples should not be collected on a separate page. Abstracts may include an
extra page for references (not examples), but this third page will not be
published in the spring newsletter. Submitters whose computers are not
envisioning A4 paper should adjust their margin sizes in order to achieve a text
box similar to that on A4 with 1'' margins (e.g. those using the American 81/2''
x 11'' size should use wider left and right margins (1.13'' or2.85 cm), and may
use smaller top and bottom margins (0.6'' or 1.5 cm)). This is especially
important for the printing of the spring GLOW newsletter.

You may submit one single-authored and one co-authored abstract, or two
co-authored abstracts but not with the same co-authors. You may not submit the
same abstract to the Colloquium and to one of the GLOW workshops.  Authors whose
abstracts are shortlisted but not selected will have the opportunity to present
their paper as a poster.

Description:

The purpose of this workshop is to explore the issues that arise at the
interface between syntax, semantics and pragmatics in language acquisition. 

We are interested in acquisition research in any area at this interface -- e.g.
the syntax-semantics of quantification, quantifier scope interactions, negation
and its interaction with polarity items or modality, questions, subordination,
the syntactic/semantic/pragmatic constraints governing anaphora (bound anaphora
vs. coreference), the morpho-syntax of noun phrases and their use and
interpretation, the morpho-syntax and the semantics of tense and aspect.

We welcome, in particular, submissions bringing empirical evidence to bear
directly on issues concerning the acquisition of syntax-semantics interface
conditioned properties, how we should think of the syntax-LF mapping and, more
generally, the syntax-semantics mapping in the course of language development,
or the theoretical, and methodological issues that the study of acquisition at
this interface raises.


 





-----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-19-2320	

	



More information about the Linguist mailing list