28.2845, Calls: Psycholinguistics, Semantics, Syntax, Language Acquisition / Snippets (Jrnl)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-28-2845. Wed Jun 28 2017. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 28.2845, Calls: Psycholinguistics, Semantics, Syntax, Language Acquisition / Snippets (Jrnl)

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: Sarah Robinson <srobinson at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 11:42:33
From: Snippets Editors [snippetsjournal at gmail.com]
Subject: Psycholinguistics, Semantics, Syntax, Language Acquisition / Snippets (Jrnl)

 
Full Title: Snippets 


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

Call Deadline: 15-Sep-2017 

We are happy to announce that we are currently accepting new submissions (in
the same traditional format). Snippets will publish two issues per year. The
submission deadline for publication in the next issue (Issue 32) is September
15th, 2017. Submissions may be sent to snippetsjournal at gmail.com. An
abbreviated version of our editorial statement may be found below. For further
details on submissions, please see http://www.ledonline.it/snippets/.

Purpose:
The aim of Snippets is to publish specific remarks that motivate research or
that make theoretical points germane to current work. The ideal contribution
is brief, self-contained and explicit. One encounters short comments of this
kind in earlier literature in linguistics. We feel that there no longer is a
forum for them. We want Snippets to help fill that gap.

Content:
We will publish notes that contribute to the study of syntax and semantics in
generative grammar. The notes are to be brief, self-contained and explicit.
They may do any of the following things:

- point out an empirical phenomenon that challenges accepted generalizations
or influential theoretical proposals/generalizations or that shows that some
aspect of a theory is problematic
- point out unnoticed minimal pairs that fall outside the scope of any
existing theory
- point out an empirical phenomenon that confirms the predictions of a theory
in an area where the theory has not been tested
- explicitly describe technical inconsistencies in a theory or in a set of
frequently adopted assumptions
- explicitly describe unnoticed assumptions that underlie a theory or
assumptions that a theory needs to be supplemented with in order to make
desired predictions
- call attention to little-known or forgotten literature in which issues of
immediate relevance are discussed

We also encourage submissions that connect psycholinguistic data to
theoretical issues. A proposal for a pilot experiment in language acquisition
or language processing could make for an excellent snippet.
The earliest Linguistic Inquiry squibs exemplify the kind of remark we would
like to publish. Some of them posed unobserved puzzles. For instance, a squib
by Postal and Ross in Linguistic Inquiry 1:1 (''A Problem of Adverb
Preposing'') noted that whether or not we can construe a sentence-initial
temporal adverb with an embedded verb depends on the tense of the matrix verb.
A squib by Perlmutter and Ross in LI 1:3 (''Relative Clauses with Split
Antecedents''), challenging the prevailing analyses of coordination and
extraposition, noted that conjoined clauses, neither of which contains a
plural noun phrase, can appear next to an ''extraposed'' relative that can
only describe groups. Other squibs drew attention to particular theoretical
assumptions. For instance, a squib by Bresnan in LI 1:2 (''A Grammatical
Fiction'') outlined an alternative account of the derivation of sentences
containing believe and force, and asked whether there were principled reasons
for dismissing any of the underlying assumptions (among them that semantic
interpretation is sensitive to details of a syntactic derivation). A squib by
Zwicky in LI 1:2 (''Class Complements in Phonology'') asked to what extent
phonological rules refer to complements of classes. None of these squibs was
more than a couple of paragraphs; all of them limited themselves to a precise
question or observation.




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

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


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-28-2845	
----------------------------------------------------------