29.75, Calls: Phonology/UK

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-29-75. Thu Jan 04 2018. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 29.75, Calls: Phonology/UK

Moderators: linguist at linguistlist.org (Damir Cavar, Malgorzata E. Cavar)
Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org (Helen Aristar-Dry, Robert Coté,
                                   Michael Czerniakowski)
Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Kenneth Steimel <ken at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2018 13:50:21
From: Heather Newell [newell.heather at uqam.ca]
Subject: Phonological Solutions to Morphological Problems

 
Full Title: Phonological Solutions to Morphological Problems 

Date: 23-May-2018 - 23-May-2018
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom 
Contact Person: Heather Newell
Meeting Email: newell.heather at uqam.ca
Web Site: https://mfmfringe2018.com 

Linguistic Field(s): Phonology 

Call Deadline: 19-Feb-2018 

Meeting Description:

Phonological Solutions to Morphological Problems is the fringe meeting
associated with the 26th Manchester Phonology Meeting (MfM). 

When it comes to questions of linguistic form, it is often possible to
construct two competing analyses one morphological and the other phonological.
It is important to be able to compare and evaluate these analyses, as the
status of any phenomenon as phonological or morphological can crucially impact
the evaluation of general theories of these domains (e.g. whether readjustment
rules are phonological or morphological impacts the how much power a
phonological theory needs to possess).

Determining which approach is more insightful will depend on a wide range of
assumptions related to: (a) the linguistic architecture and modularity, (b)
the computational power/ability of the phonological module, (c) the set and
nature of linguistic features related to form, (d) the representational
structures permitted and the types of features that can be found in different
modules, (e) the relationship there is between the linguistic content of the
mind/brain and its phonetic/surface output (is it deterministic or (substance)
free).

These assumptions can be roughly synthesised as: what are the limits? what can
the morphology and the phonology actually do in the course of a derivation?

It has been shown, especially in recent work, that representationally-focused
phonological solutions have helped account for patterns that were previously
thought to be morphological (Zoll 1993; Guerssel & Lowenstamm 1996; Lowenstamm
2008; Faust & Lampitelli 2016; Lampitelli 2017). Generally, this has the
effect of (further) promoting a linguistic architecture which is compatible
with Distributed Morphology/Minimalist assumptions. Specifically, this has led
to the reanalysis/refinement of phonologically conditioned allomorphy (Larsen
1998; Scheer 2016; Faust et al. To Appear). It has produced specific arguments
against class based allomorphy and class features in Somali (Barillot et al.
2017), Afar and Italian (Ulfsbjorninn 2016, 2017). And this analytical
approach explains a long standing problem of generative morpho-phonology: the
distinction between L1 and L2 affixation (Newell 2016). On the other hand,
even theories that promote the modularity of  morphology and phonology propose
that some echo of morphology must drive phonological computation, generally in
the form of Alignment constraints or the Prosodic Hierarchy.

References available on the conference website


Call for Papers:

For this MFM Fringe event we are welcoming talks (from any
framework/perspective) that answers the following question in the affirmative:
‘can this alternation, normally considered to be morphological, be more neatly
accounted for phonologically?’. We welcome papers that compare current
phonological and morphological accounts of the same phenomena, if these
conclude that the phonological account is superior. Lastly, we also welcome
papers that argue for a morphological analysis of an alternation, so long as
the focus of the talk is to explicitly explain/define the limits of the
phonology, thereby explaining which kinds of alternations should never be
accounted for in the phonology.

Abstracts should be no more than 1 page. 12pt font. 1 inch margins. Examples
in the text. References may be included on a separate page.

Abstracts should be sent to newell.heather at uqam.ca with MfM Fringe in the
subject line no later than Feb 19, 2018.

Notifications of acceptance will be sent out no later than Mar. 19, 2018.




------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
            http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-29-75	
----------------------------------------------------------