linguistlist.org>
Editor for this issue: Karen Milligan <karenlinguistlist.org>
zas.gwz-berlin.de>Workshop on Remnant Movement, Feature movement and their implications for the T-model. Potsdam University, 24 and 25 July 1999. During the LOT summer school in Potsdam in July 19-31 1999, there will be a workhop on Remnant Movement, F(eature)-movement and their implications for the T-model co-organized by the Linguistics Department of the University of Potsdam, ZAS Research Center for General Linguistics, Typology and Universals Berlin, and LOT. Invited speakers: Hans den Besten, Gisbert Fanselow, Roland Hinterhoelzl, Hilda Koopman, Howard Lasnik, Gereon Mueller, (David Pesetsky). Remnant Movement, F-movement and their implications for the T-model. Recent developments in linguistic theory have led to the view that phrasal movement of the traditional kind is not the only kind of XP movement. In addition, there are two types of movements that are not as easy to detect as traditional XP movement, namely F(-eature) movement and remnant movements based on pied piping of large portions of structure. In the Minimalist program (cf. Chomsky 1995), a set of universal features are is manipulated by the computational system by certain operations (Feature-Attraction and Move) to generate expressions. The operation Move involves matching of features between the target and the raised constituent and generalised pied piping. On this view, phrasal movement is an exceptional operation; the conditions under which it takes place are still unclear, e.g. is it determined by properties of the interfaces? by properties of the target? Still, phrasal movement is an operation for which there is clear evidence while feature movement is more difficult to detect. The basic argument/evidence for feature movement is locality, the fact that certain relations are sensitive to the presence of intervening elements, exactly as for the cases of overt movement. In a framework where XP movement can either be phrasal movement or feature movement, a natural question that arises concerns the necessity of the distinction between overt and covert movements. In Chomsky 1995 it was assumed that overt movement is phrasal while covert movement is FF movement and that this distinction is determined by properties of the PF interface. Another theoretical possibility however is to deny the T model and assume that all movements take place overtly. This is actually the line that Chomsky takes in his 1998 paper. He also replaces FF movement by Agree, which does not require actual movement for Checking reasons. Others have argued, however, that the T model is required (Richards 1997, Sauerland 1998). Recently, Pesetsky 1998 has argued that there is both covert XP movement and covert FF movement and that the two can be distinguished on the basis of ACDs and special kinds of intervention effects that restrict covert FF movement but not covert XP movement. Remnant movement has the following general format: [ZP ... t1 ...]2 ... X1 ... t2 X moves from a larger constituent ZP, and subsequently ZP, containing the trace of X, moves higher up. This type of operation has been around since the mid-eighties. An example is Den Besten and Webelhuth's (1987) analysis of VP-topicalization in German and Dutch, involving scrambling of one or more arguments out of VP and subsequent movement of the remnant VP. The role of Remnant Movement has become increasingly important recently, specially in analyses that assumes Kayne's antisymmetry or a variant thereof. Thus, remnant movement has been proposed for constructions that used to be analyzed as rightward movement (e.g., HNPS, Right Dislocation). While Antisymmetry considerably restricts possible syntactic structures, it necessitates more complex movement operations. Most importantly, however, the assumption that such complex movement operations exist may also lead to abandoning the T-model, as is e.g. the case in Kayne 1998. However, questions like the following have yet not be settled: e.g. the triggers and landing sites for Remnant Movement are unclear. The issue of the types of constituents that can move as a remnant is not settled. How do we explain categorial differences (e.g., Den Besten observes that VP-remnants in Dutch can move but PP-remnants cannot)? Furthermore, to which extent has (un)grammaticality of remnant movement to do with the proper binding of traces in the remnant? Additionally, when all material has moved out of a remnant X except for one constituent Y, how do we distinguish between movement of X and movement of Y (e.g., modification, stranded material)? In view of this, which cases of constituent movement need to/can be reanalyzed as remnant movement? Is it possible to reanalyze alleged violations of the HMC in terms of remnant movement (e.g, Rivero 1994)? By and large, the proposals mentioned above have been motivated by theory-internal considerations. As we saw, there have also been attempts to provide concrete diagnostics for the existence or not of such movements but in many cases, it is not clear what kind of empirical evidence one can appeal to in order to justify the choice of a particular style of movement over another. The question that arises concerns the properties of various movement types, as well as the relation between the existence of these operations and the model of Grammar one would need to assume. Abstracts Abstracts are invited for 35 minutes talks (with an additional 10 minutes for discussion). Abstracts should be anonymous and should be no longer than two pages, with margins of at least 1-inch, font size 11. Submissions are limited to a maximum of one individual and one joint abstract per author. Please provide 4 anonymous abstracts and one camera ready original. Deadline for abstract submission: April 1, 1999. Abstracts should be sent: Workshop on Movement c/o Artemis Alexiadou ZAS Jaegerstr. 10/11 10117 Berlin Germany e-mail: artemisMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
nadn.navy.mil>Call for Papers Modern Language Association 1999 Convention Division on Applied Linguistics Chicago, Illinois 27-30 December 1999 The Division on Applied Linguistics is sponsoring three separate sessions. Session 1: Cross-Cultural Pragmatics in Spoken and Written Discourse This session explores the culture-specific dimensions of speech acts and/or the composition of written texts. Papers should report on original research or make connections between research, theory, and teaching practice. Session 2: Language Acquisition and Content-based Language Instruction: What Does Research Have to Say? This session reveals what research tells us about the consequences for language acquisition of integrating the study of language and content. Papers can report on research concerning foreign language across the curriculum (FLAC) programs or content-based instruction within the foreign language departmental curriculum. Session 3: The Role of Applied Linguistics in Departments of Language and Literature This session explores the political, intellectual, and professional differences and/or common ground between the fields of applied linguistics, literature, and cultural studies. Papers may consider issues relating to department structure, professional development and preparation, or interdisciplinary communication and relationships. Send one-page blind abstracts, with cover sheet indicating presenter's contact information, to Elizabeth Knutson 7011 Wake Forest Drive College Park, MD 20740 phone 410 293-6365 fax 410 293-2729 e-mail: knutsonMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue