31.942, Confs: Syntax/Canada

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-31-942. Mon Mar 09 2020. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 31.942, Confs: Syntax/Canada

Moderator: Malgorzata E. Cavar (linguist at linguistlist.org)
Student Moderator: Jeremy Coburn
Managing Editor: Becca Morris
Team: Helen Aristar-Dry, Everett Green, Sarah Robinson, Peace Han, Nils Hjortnaes, Yiwen Zhang, Julian Dietrich
Jobs: jobs at linguistlist.org | Conferences: callconf at linguistlist.org | Pubs: pubs at linguistlist.org

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

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

Editor for this issue: Lauren Perkins <lauren at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2020 11:54:52
From: Susana Bejar [sbejar at chass.utoronto.ca]
Subject: Workshop on Agreement in Copular Clauses

 
Workshop on Agreement in Copular Clauses 

Date: 08-Apr-2020 - 09-Apr-2020 
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada 
Contact: Susana Bejar 
Contact Email: sbejar at chass.utoronto.ca 
Meeting URL: http://sites.google.com/view/agreement-in-copular-clauses 

Linguistic Field(s): Syntax 

Meeting Description: 

This workshop will feature talks about the morphosyntax of copular clauses,
with special attention to agreement, which is particularly of interest in
binominal clauses (e.g. ‘the winner is you’)  where two nominals in the
structure have the potential to control agreement. Agreement in binominal
clauses is resolved differently across languages, and also across copular
clause types (specificational, equative, identificational, etc). It is
striking that agreement with the second NP (NP2) features as a prominent
pattern. NP2 agreement is arguably non-canonical, occuring in structures where
a higher nominative/absolutive is available,  thus deviating from  the
standard expectation that the highest unmarked argument in a clause should
control agreement. This raises numerous questions. To what extent is NP2
agreement a direct consequence of the syntax of copular clauses? To what
extent does it arise indirectly via an interaction between copular clause
syntax and independent properties (e.g. scrambling, pro-drop) of the languages
in which it is observed? To what extent is it a consequence of the agreement
procedure itself? What is the locus of the variation attested both beween and
within languages? 
 

Conference Information: 

Invited speakers:
Jessica Coon (McGill University)
Marcel den Dikken (Hungarian Academy of Sciences)
Caroline Heycock (Edinburgh University)
Stefan Keine (University of Southern California)
Ur Shlonsky (University of Geneva)

Workshop organizers:
Susana Bejar (University of Toronto)
Arsalan Kahnemuypour (University of Toronto)
Ivona Kucerova (McMaster University)

The workshop will take place April 8-9 at the University of Toronto. Details
will be posted on the workshop website:
https://sites.google.com/view/agreement-in-copular-clauses. Registration is
free, but we would appreciate it if those who are planning to attend would
complete the registration form on our website by March 31, 2020.





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

***************************    LINGUIST List Support    ***************************
 The 2019 Fund Drive is under way! Please visit https://funddrive.linguistlist.org
  to find out how to donate and check how your university, country or discipline
     ranks in the fund drive challenges. Or go directly to the donation site:
               https://iufoundation.fundly.com/the-linguist-list-2019

                        Let's make this a short fund drive!
                Please feel free to share the link to our campaign:
                    https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-31-942	
----------------------------------------------------------