29.4073, Confs: Cog Sci, Comp Ling, Discipline of Ling, Ling Theories, Syntax/Spain

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-29-4073. Thu Oct 18 2018. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 29.4073, Confs: Cog Sci, Comp Ling, Discipline of Ling, Ling Theories, Syntax/Spain

Moderator: linguist at linguistlist.org (Malgorzata E. Cavar)
Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org (Helen Aristar-Dry, Robert Coté)
Homepage: https://linguistlist.org

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

Editor for this issue: Everett Green <everett at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 22:41:17
From: Elias Gallardo [gallardoelias at gmail.com]
Subject: Acceptability Judgments in Current Linguistic Theory

 
Acceptability Judgments in Current Linguistic Theory 
Short Title: AJiCLT 

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

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

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?
 

Program:

https://sites.google.com/view/acceptability/program





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

*****************    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:
            https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-29-4073	
----------------------------------------------------------