29.195, Calls: Ling Theories, Morphology, Phonology, Semantics, Syntax/Estonia

Wed Jan 10 23:14:51 UTC 2018

LINGUIST List: Vol-29-195. Wed Jan 10 2018. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 29.195, Calls: Ling Theories, Morphology, Phonology, Semantics, Syntax/Estonia

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: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 18:14:41
From: Güliz Günes [g.gunes at hum.leidenuniv.nl]
Subject: The Timing of Ellipsis

Full Title: The Timing of Ellipsis 

Date: 29-Aug-2018 - 01-Sep-2018
Location: Tallinn, Estonia 
Contact Person: Güliz Güneş
Meeting Email: g.gunes at hum.leidenuniv.nl

Linguistic Field(s): Linguistic Theories; Morphology; Phonology; Semantics; Syntax 

Call Deadline: 15-Jan-2018 

Meeting Description:

Anikó Lipták (Leiden U.)
Güliz Güneş (Leiden U.)

The Timing of Ellipsis

Regarding 'timing' as a relevant notion in understanding elliptical
constructions, may help us to open our horizon in understanding certain
unexpected behavior of constructions with ellipsis. For instance, in (1a),
when 'to' is followed by predicate ellipsis, it is contained in the same
phonological phrase as the lexical verb (the relevant phonological boundaries
are marked with brackets). However, when it is part of an adjunct phrase as in
(1b), then such phonological phrasing is disallowed. 

(1)  
a.  Mary wants to hear Fred's story and I also (want to hear Fred's story.
b. *  Mary wants to hear Fred's story and I also (came) (to hear Fred's stroy.

Could we then hypothesize that elliptical gaps are silenced syntactic
constituents (e.g. phases), which are sieved through phonological and
morphological filters for well-formedness (e.g. 1b is syntactically
well-formed but violates some phonological well-formedness condition on the
phonological phrasing of function words)?

There are several other proposals concerning the 'timing' of ellipsis: 

What we can call the syntactic approach holds that deletion is 'induced' in
the syntactic computation, either via elimination of some features/portions of
syntactic structures (Baltin 2012), or via the presence of an ellipsis feature
such as [E], which triggers PF non-realization (Merchant 2001, Müller 2011).
Since these features participate in syntactic operations, accounts of this
sort predict that one can find syntactic constraints on ellipsis and ellipsis
feeds/bleeds other syntactic processes, such as movement (van Craenenbroeck
and Lipták 2008, Aelbrecht 2010, Merchant 2010, Bošković 2014, Lipták and Saab
2014, Bennett et al. 2017, Sailor to appear). 

On the other hand ellipsis is also considered as an operation that takes place
in the postsyntactic component only. Accordingly, ellipsis (also referred to
as PF-deletion) is interpreted as the non-insertion of Vocabulary Items
defined as in Distributed Morphology (cf. Wilder 1997, Bartos 2001, Kornfeld &
Saab 2004, Saab 2009, Aelbrecht 2009, van Craenenbroeck 2010, Schoorlemmer &
Temmerman 2012, Merchant 2016, Murphy 2017, Ionova 2017).

It is also argued that there are ellipsis operations that are prosodically
driven, as such operations arguably take place at the post-syntactic component
and are constrained by prosodic/phonological structural well-formedness and
not necessarily e.g. syntactic constituency (Napoli 1982, Weir 2012, Murphy
2016, Thoms and Sailor 2017). 

It may also be the case that ''ellipsis is a very complex phenomenon whose
effects are distributed over all aspects of linguistic representation
(pragmatics, semantics, syntax, morphology, phonology, the lexicon)'' (Bennet
et al. 2017: 29), such that ellipsis may interact not only with syntactic
dependencies, but also with morphological and phonological well-formedness
requirements. 

The aim of this workshop is to bring together scholars from different
subfields of linguistics and working within a variety of theoretical
frameworks, to shed light on the timing of ellipsis in various constructions
in English and other languages. By doing this, we aim to expand the commonly
held syntax-only accounts of the silent structure approach of ellipsis, to the
areas of morphology, and phonology, which allows us to explicate different
types of ellipses in terms of its timing (late (morphologically/phonologically
derived/licensed) ellipsis, early (syntactically derived/licensed) ellipsis).

Call for Papers:

We invite abstracts that bear on the timing of ellipsis from theoretical and
experimental angles, addressing the issue in any language and in any
elliptical phenomena. In particular, questions that the workshop seeks to
address include - but are not limited to - the following:

- Is ellipsis induced in the syntax or only in the postsyntactic component?
- If ellipsis is induced in the syntax, is it phase-based?
- Is ellipsis a uniform phenomenon, or are there different types of ellipsis?
If there are distinct types, what are their properties and how can they be
identified?
- Are there cross-linguistic differences in the timing of ellipsis?
- What can ellipsis tell us about the ordering of operations in the
(post)syntactic component?
- What do prosodic/morphological constraints reveal about the timing of
ellipsis?
- To what extent are ellipsis remnants constrained by prosodic phrasing/
cliticisation/ incorporation?
- In what way does the timing of ellipsis interacts with the timing of (head)
movement? What are the consequences of movement (out of the ellipsis site)
before ellipsis and after ellipsis?

Submission Guidelines:

Abstracts are submitted via Easychair. To submit your abstract, please go to:
https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=sle2018 

Abstracts should clearly state research questions, approach, method, data and
(expected) results. They should not contain the names of the presenters, nor
their affiliations or addresses, or any other information that may reveal
their authorship. They should not exceed 500 words (excluding references).
Abstracts should have the same title as the entry submitted via Easychair. 

Presentations will last 20 minutes allowing 5 min. for discussion and 5 min.
for speaker and changes.

Important Dates:

15 January 2018: Deadline for submission of all abstracts
31 March 2018: Notification of paper acceptance

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

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

----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-29-195	
----------------------------------------------------------