[parislinguists] call for papers: workshop on the copy theory

[Pica]

------ Message transféré
De : Jairo Morais Nunes <nunes at panini.iel.unicamp.br>
Date : Tue, 26 Oct 2004 20:07:07 -0200 (BRST)
À : JUAN URIAGEREKA <juan at wam.umd.edu>, Klaus Abels <abels at uni-leipzig.de>,
Klaus Abels <klaus.abels at gmx.net>, David Adger <da4 at york.ac.uk>, Joseph Aoun
<aoun at attwireless.blackberry.net>, Tanmoy Bhattacharya
<bhattach at rz.uni-leipzig.de>, Valentina Bianchi <vale_bianchi at libero.it>,
jonathan.bobaljik at uconn.edu, l.l.cheng at let.leidenuniv.nl, Lina Choueiri
<choueiri at usc.edu>, Ricardo Etxepare <retxepare at euskalnet.net>, Gisbert
Fanselow <fanselow at rz.uni-potsdam.de>, Hans-Martin Gaertner
<gaertner at DMZ01.zas.gwz-berlin.de>, Elordieta Alzibar Gorka
<fepelalg at vc.ehu.es>, Alex Grosu <grosua at ccsg.tau.ac.il>, Roland
Hinterhoelzl <rolandh at www.zedat.fu-berlin.de>, Hiroto Hoshi
<hh5 at soas.ac.uk>, "K. A. Jayaseelan" <jayamrit at eth.net>, Alazne Landa
<fiplaarm at euskalnet.net>, Idan Landau <idanl at bgumail.bgu.ac.il>, David
Lightfoot <lightd at georgetown.edu>, Ana Maria Martins
<anamartins at clul.ul.pt>, Uribe-Etxebarria Goti Maria <fvpurgom at vc.ehu.es>,
Masao Ochi <ochi at lang.osaka-u.ac.jp>, Jamal Ouhalla <j.ouhalla at ucd.ie>,
Pierre Pica <pica at msh-paris.fr>, Eduardo Raposo <rap at spanport.ucsb.edu>,
Cilene Rodrigues <cilene at wam.umd.edu>, Chris Wilder
<chris at zas.gwz-berlin.de>, Francisco Ordóñez
<fordonez at notes2.cc.sunysb.edu>, j.e.c.v.rooryck at let.leidenuniv.nl,
Chris.Reintges at let.leidenuniv.nl, Tim Stowell <stowell at humnet.ucla.edu>,
Ellen Thompson <thompson at fiu.edu>, "Jakubowicz, Celia -- Celia Jakubowi"
<cjakubowi at yahoo.com>, varlokosta at rhodes.aegean.gr
Objet : call for papers: workshop on the copy theory (PLEASE CIRCULATE)

The Copy Theory of Movement on the PF Side

Call for papers

Call Deadline: November 7, 2004
 
 
INVITED SPEAKERS: 
Zeljko Boskovic (University of Connecticut)
Norbert Hornstein (University of Maryland)

ORGANIZING INSTITUTE
Utrecht Institute of Linguistics-OTS, Utrecht University, The Netherlands
 
ORGANIZERS: 
Norbert Corver and Jairo Nunes
 
DATES OF THE WORKSHOP
December 14-15, 2004
 
ABSTRACT SUBMISSION:
We invite submissions of abstracts dealing with empirical and/or
conceptual consequences of the copy theory of movement for the
computations on the PF side of the grammar. The deadline for receipt of
abstracts is: November 7, 2004. Notification of acceptance will take place
by November 15 at the latest.
Submissions must be sent electronically (PDF (preferred), or MSWord
attachments). The subject line should read .abstract. and the body of the
message should contain the following information:
Title of the Paper
Name(s) of Author(s)
Affiliation(s)
E-mail address(es)
Snail-mail address(es)
     
Submissions should be sent to: Jairo.Nunes at let.uu.nl
 
Abstract requirements:
The abstract text should be at most 2 pages long, in a 12-point font with
1-inch margins.
 
For more information, please visit the website of this workshop at:
http://www-uilots.let.uu.nl/events/Conferences/Conferences.htm

Accomodation:
People should make their own reservations. Please visit the General &
Pratical Information section of the Uil-OTS homepage for information about
accomodation in Utrecht:
http://www-uilots.let.uu.nl/events/Conferences/conferences-text.htm



WORKSHOP DESCRIPTION
A fundamental property of human languages is that syntactic constituents
are interpreted in positions different from the ones where they are
phonetically realized. Within the generative tradition that culminated in
the GB model, this .displacement property. was standardly analyzed as
involving an operation moving a given element from one structural position
to another, leaving behind a coindexed trace. A trace was conceived of as
a phonetically unrealized category that inherited the relevant
interpretation properties of the moved element, forming with it a
discontinuous object . a chain. A considerable amount of research within
GB was devoted to properly characterizing the properties of movement,
traces, and chains. In the context of the Minimalist Program (see Chomsky
1995), all these questions arise anew, in face of the elimination of much
of the rich theoretical apparatus previously available. In particular,
only the interface levels LF and PF are assumed, and LF objects are built
from the features of the lexical items of the array that feeds a
derivation (Chomsky.s 1995 Inclusiveness Condition). Under the standard
theory of movement stemming from Chomsky 1973, however, traces and their
indices are not part of the initial array, but are introduced in the
course of the derivation.
    Addressing similar issues, Chomsky (1993) incorporates the .copy
theory of movement. into the Minimalist Program. According to the copy
theory, a trace is a copy of the moved element that is deleted in the
phonological component (in the case of overt movement), but is available
for interpretation at LF.  Besides being compatible with the Inclusiveness
Condition, the copy theory has the advantage of allowing binding theory to
be stated solely in LF terms and dispensing with the operation of
reconstruction. Furthermore, if traces are copies, they are not discrete
theoretical primitives by themselves; they are either lexical items or
phrases built from lexical items. By making it possible to promote this
overall simplification of the theoretical apparatus in GB, the copy theory
has thus become a solid pillar of the Minimalist Program. However, it is
fair to say that the bulk of the research on the copy theory thus far has
mainly focused on interpretation issues at LF (reconstruction, chain
binding, quantifier-variable binding, construal, etc.), leaving issues on
the PF side almost untouched. This by no means entails that such issues
are uninteresting; the adoption of the copy theory raises many nontrivial
questions about the mapping from Spell-Out to PF.
    As a contribution to fill this gap, this workshop aims at
congregating recent work that deals with empirical and/or conceptual
consequences of the copy theory of movement for the computations on the PF
side of the grammar. Below is a (definitely non-exhaustive) list of issues
that should animate our discussion in the workshop.

a) Are there empirical data that can be accounted for by the copy theory
but not by traditional trace theory?

b) On the LF side, it seems that different chain links or even different
pieces of different links are in principle available for interpretation
(see Chomsky 1993, for instance). By contrast, it appears that on the PF
side, only heads of chains are available for phonetic realization. Is this
picture correct? In other words, are there cases with .traces. (lower
copies) pronounced instead of the head of the chain or cases with more
than one chain link or all the links phonetic realized? Is there a
principled reason for the dissimilarities between interpretation at LF and
pronunciation at PF? What, in short, regulates phonetic realization of
copies?  

c) Assuming that (at least in general) only the head of the chain is
phonetically realized, it must be the case that .traces. (lower copies)
are deleted or that only the head of the chain gets phonological features
through late insertion along the lines of Distributed Morphology. Is there
empirical evidence to distinguish these possibilities? When exactly does
deletion or insertion of phonological features take place? How does
deletion or insertion of phonological features interact with other
computations of the phonological component?

d) In recent years, movement within nonclausal domains (DPs, PPs, APs,
etc.) have received considerable attention in the literature. Does the
copy theory shed new light on displacement within these domains?

e) Should resumptive expressions (pronouns and epithets/definite
descriptions) also be treated as copies of their antecedents in the
technical sense of the copy theory? If so, what sorts of operations are
involved in the conversion of a bona fide copy into a resumptive
expression?

f) Under the copy theory, two occurrences of any given syntactic term in
the structure count as copies or distinct elements, depending on whether
or not they relate to the same selection of lexical items of the
numeration. In the case of the structure [John [saw John]], for example,
we have copies if it is built from a numeration with one instance of John,
but distinct elements if it is built from a numeration containing two
instances. Interestingly, this formal distinction apparently makes it
possible to circumvent the overgeneration arguments against earlier
generative approaches to anaphoric dependencies in terms of
pronominalization and reflexivization. In [John [saw John]], for example,
reflexivization could be prevented from overgenerating if it could only
apply to copies. Given that this notion of (non)distinctiveness is already
necessary within the system, can it be used to account for the
complementarity between anaphors and pronouns? In other words, doesn.t the
new formal distinction provided by the copy theory warrant a minimalist
evaluation of the old pronominalization and reflexivization rules? What
are the arguments for or against such revival within minimalism?
  
g) In GB, traces were subject to the ECP, which in some versions included
head government as a PF-requirement. How is this PF-part of the ECP to be
understood in the context of the copy theory (be it implemented in terms
of deletion or noninsertion of phonological features)?

h) Within Minimalism, the copy theory has been explored in terms of the
operations Copy and Merge (see Chomsky 1995) and in terms of multiple
applications of Merge (see Chomsky 2000). Is there empirical evidence to
tease these two approaches apart?



------ Fin du message transféré



Pour se desinscire, envoyer un mel à parislinguists-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
Pour s'inscrire, envoyer un mel à parislinguists-subscribe at yahoogroups.com 
Liens Yahoo! Groupes

<*> Pour consulter votre groupe en ligne, accédez à :
    http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/parislinguists/

<*> Pour vous désincrire de ce groupe, envoyez un mail à :
    parislinguists-desabonnement at yahoogroupes.fr

<*> L'utilisation de Yahoo! Groupes est soumise à l'acceptation des :
    http://fr.docs.yahoo.com/info/utos.html