Call for papers Workshop Variation in Inflection

Wed Apr 6 13:46:58 UTC 2005

Call for papers Workshop Variation in Inflection

December 19-20, 2005

University of Amsterdam

Invited speakers: 

David Adger (Queen Mary University of London)

Anthony Kroch (University of Pennsylvania)

Cecilia Poletto (University of Padua)

Tom Roeper (University of Massachusetts/Amherst)

Bonnie Schwartz (University of Hawai’i at Manoa)

What are the factors that cause deflection? In order to answer this
question, the Meertens Institute (KNAW) and the Amsterdam Center for
Language and Communication (UvA) have started a research-program called
Variation in Inflection, or simply Variflex. Two types of factors may be
relevant: internal factors related to the linguistic system and external,
sociolinguistic factors. Typological variation (including dialect
differences) and variation observed in the development of monolingual
children are telling with regard to the boundaries set by our linguistic
system. Typological variation and variation in L2 acquisition provide
information with regard to external factors.

Thus, a second question addressed in the Variflex program is: What are the
boundaries of variation in inflection? Empirical data suggest that the
variation space of inflectional morphology is huge. Even within one language
system there are various paradigms, dialects differ in inflectional
contrasts and variation surfaces in various stages in the process of the
acquisition of inflection. The amount of observed variation in inflectional
morphology (at the interface of morphology and syntax) contrasts strikingly
with other observed variation such as word order phenomena (syntax proper).
Typological comparisons suggest that there are natural classes of
inflectional features that are hierarchically organized, patterns of
syncretism within a language suggest metaparadigmatic structure, the
“errors” that children make seem pre-determined and, diachronically, not
every possible change to inflectional paradigms has actually taken place.

To determine the variation space of agreement inflection in Dutch Variflex
takes a multidisciplinary approach that focuses on dialect variation, L1
acquisition, L2 acquisition and language change. The overall research
question of the program is: Is deflection the effect of language contact, or
to be more specific, the effect of imperfect second language acquisition
that characterizes language contact situations, given that the output of
this group of learners forms the input of a new group of first language
acquirers? In this workshop the first results of Variflex will be discussed
to a wider public. The above panel of specialists is invited to give
presentations on related matters, on the basis of their own research, and to
discuss all angles of the multidisciplinary approach. The rest of the
program consists of selected papers on the issue of variation in inflection.
Selected papers should address one or more of the specific questions below:

Delimiting the variation space

·       Successful, quick and almost errorless acquisition of agreement
inflection by monolingual children suggests UG-driven learning, where UG
delimits the hypothesis space of a language-learning child. What would be a
UG-driven model for the acquisition of inflection? In this respect the
recent discussion on the nature of the language faculty (Hauser, Chomsky &
Fitch (2002)) and the reaction of Jackendoff & Pinker (2004) may be
interesting. 

·       Linguists disagree on the issue of whether or not inflectional
paradigms exist as mental objects (Bobaljik, 2001).
Paradigms-as-mental-objects are argued to play a role in the acquisition of
inflection (Pinker, 1986; Baker, 1991; Wunderlich, 1995). What would be the
delimiting role (and hence advantage) of paradigm-structure?

·       On the basis of typological studies such as Greenberg (1967), innate
feature hierarchies have been proposed for person and number features (Noyer
1997; Harley & Ritter 2001). What is the status of these hierarchies,
empirical support for their existence and theoretical motivation?

Determining other influences on variation

·       In the literature on L2 acquisition of morphology, it has been
argued that children and adults pass through similar stages (Dulay & Burt
1974; Vermeer 1986). This may suggest that adult learners are as successful
as children with regard to the acquisition of inflection. Other observations
contradict this conclusion (Johnson & Newport 1989; Prévost & White 2000;
Lardière 2001; Schwartz 2003, 2004). Is there evidence for critical age
effects with respect to the acquisition of inflection?

·       Theories on L1-transfer in L2 acquisition make different prediction
with respect to transfer (Vainikka & Young-Scholten, 1994; Eubank 1993/1994,
Schwartz & Sprouse, 1994). Is inflection in the DP and IP influenced by L1
transfer?

·       The Language Contact hypothesis for deflection is supported by the
comparison between, for instance, Icelandic and African. Is the Language
Contact hypothesis supported by other cross-linguistic data; i.e., do
languages that have a history with much contact indeed show much deflection,
and vice versa?

Variation and theoretical models:

How do different models treat inflectional contrasts? Which model is most
successful? Below, we give three examples of apparently promising theories.
Each model raises new questions, though:

·       Principles & Parameters theory (Chomsky, 1981) accounts for
variation between languages with language-specific parameter settings. The
parameters themselves are universal, just like the principles of grammar.
Typologists (Rohrbacher, 1984) and acquisitionists (Wexler, 1998) working
within this framework have argued for strong correlations between micro- and
macro-level variation. If each inflectional feature is represented by a
parameter, the notion of parameter becomes vacuous. Thus, are parameters
appropriate in explaining the huge amount of variation in inflection?

·       Distributed Morphology (Halle & Marantz, 1993) accounts for the
variation between languages by means of language-specific Impoverishment
rules and underspecification. In this framework, (micro-) variation in
inflection is independent of (macro-)variation in syntax. How does such a
model account for universal patterning, however?

·       Optimality Theory (Bresnan, 2001) accounts for variation between
languages and for developmental patterns by means of variation in constraint
ranking (either language-specific or for a specific developmental stage).
Restrictions come from universality of the constraints. Can/Should related
geographic, diachronic and developmental varieties be explained by related
constraint rankings?

Program

The workshop is meant for linguists with an interest in one or more of these
areas: theoretical linguistics, morphosyntax, typology, dialect variation,
L1 and L2 acquisition and/or language change. The program partly consists of
presentations and partly of (panel-)discussions with the audience (including
organizers). The first results of Variflex will be presented, and the five
invited speakers will present their own, related, work. In addition to these
presentations, we will select no more than eight speakers, who are each
given 30 minutes for their presentation followed by 15 minutes for questions
and discussion. The workshop will take place on 19-20 December 2005 at the
University of Amsterdam.

Reimbursement

We hope to be able to partially reimburse travel costs and costs for
overnight stay for selected speakers.

Guidelines for submission

Abstracts (in Times New Roman 12 point font with 1” margins) should be no
more than 2 pages including figures, examples and references. Please send
your abstract anonymously by e-mail as an attachment to w.b.t.blom at uva.nl
<mailto:w.b.t.blom at uva.nl>. Acceptable formats are attachments as MS Word or
PDF documents.

Please include the following information in the body of the message:
1. Name 
2. Affiliation 
3. Title of the paper
4. Postal address 
5. E-mail address 
6. Summer address (if different)

Deadline for submission: June 15, 2005
Notice of acceptance: September 15, 2005

Organizing committee

Elma Blom, Jan de Jong, Alies MacLean, Fred Weerman

Variflex-members:

Hans Bennis (Meertens Institute/KNAW, UvA), Fred Weerman (UvA/ACLC), Elma
Blom (child and adult L2 acquisition, IP-DP inflection, UvA/ACLC), Jan de
Jong (impaired bilingual acquisition, IP-DP inflection, UvA/ACLC), Daniela
Polišenská (monolingual L1 acquisition, IP-DP inflection, UvA/ACLC), Alies
MacLean (dialect variation, IP-DP inflection, Meertens Institute/KNAW),
Suzanne Aalberse (diachrony, loss of 2nd person, UvA/ACLC), Maren Pannemann
(bilingual acquisition, DP, UvA/ACLC), Antje Orgassa (impaired bilingual
acquisition, IP-DP inflection, UvA/ACLC)

Website 
http://home.hum.uva.nl/variflex/index.htm