LINGUIST List 10.1138

Thu Jul 29 1999

Calls: GLOW2000, DGfS/Verbs

Editor for this issue: Karen Milligan <karenlinguistlist.org>

Directory

1. Congreso Glow 2000, GLOW2000
2. [** ISO-8859-1 charset **] Nicole Deh\233, DGfS2000

The 23rd GLOW Colloquium 2000

Organized by the Basque Center for Language Research-LEHIA (U. of the
Basque Country & U. of Deusto). 

Call for Papers Please specify in the abstract whether it is intended for
the main session (Derivations and Representations) or the workshops ( I)
Focus or II) Null/Overt Morphology). 


Derivations and Representations.
April 16-18, 2000.
U. of the Basque Country, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain.

In 1965, when Chomsky's Aspects appeared, transformational grammar was in
its most typical manifestations a derivational paradigm. Attention was
generally focused upon different types of rules with their various
interactions, with the concept of the cycle as the most significant
development. It soon was clear that many grammatical phenomena, such as
binding relations could not be conceived in derivational terms. In 1973,
with the introductions of traces by Chomsky, the way seemed to be free to
assimilate movement transformations into a representational format. 
Notions such as "command", "superiority", locality principles specifying
domains where certain relations hold, seemed to be readily accountable in
purely representational terms. The representational approach to
grammatical relations was strengthen by the GB model, with configurational
conditions on the well-formerness of empty categories (ECP), and
operations crucially affecting purely representational objects such as
parts of chains (Affect-alpha, Lasnik & Saito 1984). Phrase structure
theory remained heavily representational after the abandonment of phrase
structure rules for the more general format of X-bar. The representational
approach was also enhanced by the observation that grammatical relations
defined levels where they were uniquely realized: for instance, binding
relations were thought to be checked before LF movement applied (see
Chomsky 1995) and seemed to be subject to "reconstruction" effects, a
mechanism that placed XPs, for interpretation purposes, in a configuration
different from the one their derivational history would predict (Barrs
1986). Conditions on the mapping of lexical-conceptual structures into
syntactic structures were devised which also assumed an independent level.
Those observations led linguists to postulate internal levels of
representation in the architecture of grammar.

	In more recent years -and especially within the Minimalist
Program-, stress has been put on assimilating the grammatical phenomena
which informed the previous levels to either PF/LF interfaces or
computational demands, therefore reducing the representational burden of
the theory. The issue of how many interfaces or levels of representation
the language faculty has have become a crucial question: should
intentional and conceptual information be bumped into a single interface
or level of representation, or should prosodic and interpretative
correlations regarding information structure require a further component? 
Does the mapping from the lexicon into the computational system reveal any
substantive condition? Are theta-roles configurational derivatives or
substantive features? Is the mapping of theta-roles into syntactic
structure transparent or not? Is the lexicon a constructive system,
perhaps part of the computational system (Hale & Keyser 1993) or not?,
etc.
	The absence of D-structure as an internal level where lexical
properties were expressed, once and for all, in terms accessible to the
computational system, opens the way to generalized transformations and to
a strictly derivational constructive system. New questions arise in this
context: Are there economy conditions imposed on derivations? Are
anticyclic operations less economical than cyclic ones, or just
impossible? Is there LF-movement or not? In any case, how should we treat
"reconstructions" effects and quantifier scope?
	Ever since its inception in SPE (Chomsky and Halle 1968),
generative phonology also adopted a derivational approach. Much like in
syntax, phonological theory assumed an abstract underlying representation,
and a set of phonological rules transformed the underlying representation
of each word and morpheme, providing intermediate representations until
the surface output form was achieved. The notion of rule ordering and the
cycle was crucial in this respect (Mascars 1976), and was the seed of
Lexical Phonology and Morphology, a theory which argued for phonological
derivations within a level-ordered lexicon (lexical rules) as well as at
the output of syntactic operations (Kiparsky 1982, Mohanan 1982). With the
advent of Optimality Theory (Prince and Smolensky 1993), however, the idea
that rules and intermediate representations exist in phonology is
abandoned. Rather, OT claims that there are two levels of representation,
an underlying representation and an output representation, and that
well-formerness constraints are used to evaluate candidate outputs. 
	The theoretical assumptions adopted by the current models of
phonological theory have different theoretical implications and posit very
different answers with regard to issues such as the following: Can it be
safely proclaimed that there is absolutely no evidence for assuming the
existence of intermediate levels of phonological representation? If the
levels of lexical and postlexical phonology are to be assumed, what is the
nature of the interaction between these two levels? E.g., does the former
feed the latter, or are there parallel computations for each level? In
other words, can we get rid of the notion of phonological derivations
completely? Should considerations of economy of representation arise in
phonological theory? What different views of underspecification theory can
be currently adopted? In some versions of OT Output-Output mappings are
also contemplated (to account for paradigm effects, etc.). Is it
possible/useful to eliminate all nonsurface levels of representation?
	With regard to the interface between phonology and other
components of the grammar, the following questions arise: What is the
nature of the interface between phonology and phonetics? How is the
interaction between phonological and morphological operations to be
treated within the model of the grammar? Is there a module of
Morphological Structure as proclaimed by the theory of Distributed
Morphology (Halle 1990, Halle and Marantz 1993)? How should the interface
between syntax and phonology be dealt with? Also, what is the place of the
phonological component in a theory of grammar? 

Abstract Submission

The colloquium will consist of 20 talks of 45 minutes each plus
discussion. Abstracts may not exceed 2 pages with at least a 1 inch margin
on all four sides and should employ a font not smaller than 11pt. They
should be sent anonymously in tenfold, accompanied by a camera-ready
original with the author's name, address and affiliation to: 

GLOW Selection Committee [Main Session]
c/o Alazne Landa
Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea (UPV-EHU)
Filologia eta Geografia-Historia Fakultatea
Ingeles Filologia Saila
Unibertsitateko Ibilbidea, 5
E-01006 Gasteiz
email: ficglowvh.ehu.es


Deadline for submission of abstracts: December 1, 1999
Submissions by fax or email will not be accepted. 

Reimbursement 
Speakers will receive partial reimbursement for their expenses.



The Glow Workshops I, II
April 19, 2000
Organized by the Basque Center for Language Research, LEHIA
U. of Deusto, Bilbao


Workshop I: Focus

Natural languages may use identificational strategies for foci which
involve prosody, morphology and syntax, or any combination thereof. As a
result, theoretical issues related to focus may touch on all major areas
of grammar (syntax, semantics, pragmatics, morphology, phonology). From
the perspective of the architecture of the language, the issue arises
whether the analysis of focalization warrants positing an interface level
different from PF and LF to account for the information structure of
sentences in natural language. Alternatively, it might be possible to
treat the correlations PF-LF as part of the computational system that
relates them. Many languages use overt computations at the left periphery
to signal focalized material, and several proposals for functional
categories checking focal features have been proposed. Is there evidence
for similar covert operations? What is the relation between proposed
syntactic phrases and the representation required to account for the
semantics of focalization? In particular, if a tripartite interpretation
similar to that found in quantificational contexts must be posited for
foci to account for the relationship between focal stress and
presupposition other questions arise: Are there syntactic operations that
can be linked to presupposition construction? How can we draw the line
between the pragmatic and semantic aspects of the process?

	Focus has also a phonological reflection; in many languages
focalized constituents receive main prosodic prominence in an utterance,
but in other languages they do not. An interesting issue from a
typological and theoretical point of view is whether there is an inverse
relationship between morphological marking and prosodic prominence, due to
avoidance of redundancy in overt signaling of focus. That is, whether or
not languages that display overt morphological marking of focus also mark
focalized constituents with prosodic prominence. Proposed algorithms for
focal stress placement like Cinque's also pose important questions, both
empirical (focalization of elements other than the most deeply embedded
one, mismatches between prosodic prominence and focal interpretation) and
theoretical (its compatibility with asymmetric approaches to syntactic
structure, etc.).
	Another area of interest is the behaviour of focus in prosodic
phonology, in particular concerning the questions of whether focalized
elements insert prosodic constituency boundaries to their left or right,
and whether these prosodic domains exist independently in the inventory of
the prosodic hierarchy (e.g. phonological phrases). Related to this point,
it is important to continue deepening our understanding of the effects of
focus or intonation. For instance, How does focus affect relations of
prominence among intonational constituents? or How does it affect
intonational phrasing itself (e.g., insertion of intermediate phrase
boundaries, blocking of downstep, deaccenting, etc.)? 


Workshop II: Null/Overt morphology

	In the same way as the issue of abstractness arises in
phonological theory, a parallel question arises in morphology: How
abstract is morphology? Do words really have internal structure? and, to
the extent that they do, How should it be represented? Abstract
representation often requires postulating the existence of a relatively
large number of null elements. Null morphemes have played an important
role in current theories of argument structure, in trying to establish a
correlation between the internal structure of a word and its semantic
import. Abstract morphemes have equally played an important role in
accounting for category changing processes across languages. 
	The topic of the overt/null morphology distinction is also of
particular interest for lexical decomposition and argument structure. 
Among the many issues that may be relevant are the following: How is the
correlation between overt/null morphology and argument structure to be
captured? Do we have independent evidence (phonological or
morphosyntactic) in favor of positing abstract morphological elements? 
	Though still tentative and facing descriptive limitations,
cross-linguistic studies have pointed out to some significative
correspondences between presence/absence of overt morphology and syntactic
properties such as word order, pro-drop, argument interpretation
(specificity/non-specificity), animacy restrictions, etc. In the light of
such correspondences, it is important to deepen in our understanding of
the syntactic role(s) played by the null/overt distinction in syntax, and
in the formalization of such correlations. In the last two decades, a
number of attempts have been made in the literature --especially as
regards inflectional morphology-- with proposals ranging from
characterizations in terms of the licensing and identification of pro
(cfr. Jaeggli & Safir 1989, Rizzi 1986, Speas 1994, among others) to
accounts in terms of movement, either DP-movement (Chomsky 1995, Runner
1994 and so on) or V-movement (Roberts 1993, Sola 1995, Vikner 1995). For
this workshop we encourage papers that either uncover new correspondences
between null/overt morphology and syntax, or bring novel arguments in
favor different syntactic treatments of the distinction. 


Abstract Submission

Abstracts for workshops I and II are invited for 45 minute presentations
(plus 15 minutes discussion). The abstracts should not exceed two pages,
and they should employ a font not smaller than 11pt. Please send five
anonymous copies plus a camera ready original (with author's name,
address, including email address, and affiliation) to the address
specified below. Submissions by fax or email will not be accepted. 
Speakers will be partially reimbursed. 

GLOW Workshops I, II
c/o Alazne Landa
Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea (UPV-EHU)
Filologia eta Geografia-Historia Fakultatea
Ingeles Filologia Saila
Unibertsitateko Ibilbidea, 5
E-01006 Gasteiz
email: ficglowvh.ehu.es

Deadline for submission of abstracts: December 1, 1999.

Call for Papers
Workshop: "Semantically complex verbs and their argument structure"
Annual Conference of the German Linguistics Society (DGfS), March 1-3,
2000 "The Word - Concepts and Structures" University of Marburg,
Germany conference
homepage:http://www.uni-marburg.de/linguistik/dgfs2000 DGfS homepage:
http://www.coral.lili.uni-bielefeld.de/DGfS
__________________________________________________________
We invitepapers on all aspects of the grammatical representation of
semantically complex verbs, such as prefix verbs, particle verbs,
resultative constructions, compounds, psych verbs. The central topics
are the formation of semantically complex verbs
(movement/incorporation or extension of lexical structures) and their
lexical and syntactic representation in different languages. Though
the focus is on theoretical linguistics, we also encourage
contributions that offer insights from research in language
acquisition, language production, and language processing.

Time slots for papers are either 20+10 or 45+15 minutes.
Abstract submission (max. 1 page): August 22
Notification of acceptance (via e-mail): September 30
Conference languages: German and English

We encourage submission by e-mail. Acceptable formats are Microsoft
Word and plain ascii text. Send abstract to:
deherz.uni-leipzig.de
Nicole Dehe 
Universitaet Leipzig 
Graduiertenkolleg "Universalitaet
und Diversitaet" 
Bruehl 34-50 
D-04109 Leipzig

The organizers of the workshop are:
Nicole Dehe (University of Leipzig)
Anja Wanner (University of Goettingen)

- --------------------------------
Nicole Deh\233
Universitaet Leipzig
ZfK / Graduiertenkolleg
"Universalitaet und Diversitaet: Sprachliche Strukturen und Prozesse"
Bruehl 34-50 Raum 903
04109 Leipzig
Tel.: 0341 - 97 37862 oder 97 37863
Fax.: 0341 - 97 37869
e-mail: deherz.uni-leipzig.de