29.1753, Calls: Cog Sci, Comp Ling, Discipline of Ling, Ling Theories, Syntax/Spain

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-29-1753. Mon Apr 23 2018. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 29.1753, Calls: Cog Sci, Comp Ling, Discipline of Ling, Ling Theories, Syntax/Spain

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: Mon, 23 Apr 2018 17:46:23
From: Ángel J. Gallego [angel.gallego at uab.cat]
Subject: Acceptability Judgments in Current Linguistic Theory

 
Full Title: Acceptability Judgments in Current Linguistic Theory 
Short Title: AJiCLT 

Date: 25-Oct-2018 - 26-Oct-2018
Location: Barcelona, Spain 
Contact Person: Ángel J. Gallego
Meeting Email: angel.gallego at uab.cat
Web Site: https://sites.google.com/view/acceptability/home 

Linguistic Field(s): Cognitive Science; Computational Linguistics; Discipline of Linguistics; Linguistic Theories; Syntax 

Call Deadline: 12-Jun-2018 

Meeting Description:

The goal of this workshop is to reflect on and re-consider the notion of
“acceptability” and related concepts, and the ways in which they can inform
linguistic theorizing. Judgments of “well-formedness” and “deviance” are
standardly employed in generative linguistics since Chomsky’s (1955/1975,
1957, 1965) foundational works, despite the fact that these notions have never
been clearly defined and their relevance for natural language prominently
denied (cf. Chomsky 1986, Chomsky & Lasnik 1993, and Ott 2017 for a survey,
amon many others). Is our theory of grammar primarily a model of acceptability
(and if so, what exactly is acceptability/deviance?), or of something else,
e.g. the constrained ways in which sound and meaning can be paired in natural
language, including in “deviant” expressions (Chomsky 1993)? What kinds of
speaker intuitions do we want our theory to account for, and which should we
exclude as extraneous “noise”? Can naive speakers provide relevant intuitions,
or should we rely on linguistically trained informants? How does acceptability
relate to grammaticality--if at all? And what can related notions such as
speaker preferences, negative data, intra-speaker variation, and
substandard/non-frequent data tell us about the language faculty, and the ways
in which we can elucidate its nature?


Call for Papers:

Papers addressing any aspect of the workshop topic are welcome. Submissions
are limited to a maximum of one individual and one joint abstract, or two
joint abstracts per author. Authors are asked to submit their anonymous
abstracts as a PDF file through EasyChair
(https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=ajiclt18). Abstracts should be no
longer than two pages in length (including examples and references), in
12-­point font, single-line spacing and 2.5cm margins.




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

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:

              The IU Foundation Crowd Funding site:
       https://iufoundation.fundly.com/the-linguist-list

               The LINGUIST List FundDrive Page:
            http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-29-1753	
----------------------------------------------------------