linguistlist.org>
Editor for this issue: Jody Huellmantel <jodylinguistlist.org>
uni-konstanz.de>Call for papers: WORKSHOP ON MORPHO-SYNTACTIC MISMATCHES To be held as a part of the 24. Annual Meeting of the DGfS (German Linguistics Association) Mannheim, Germany, >February 27 - March 1, 2002 WORKSHOP DESCRIPTION: The objective of this workshop is an examination of the morphology-syntax interface with respect to the question of how category-changing morphology interacts with syntactic structure. Category-changing morphology would usually be subsumed under "derivation", and as such be considered to be a matter of the lexicon. This is in contrast to "inflection" which is typically seen as dependent on the syntactic environment of a word. However, there are cases that look like morphological derivation but are transparent with respect to syntactic structures and processes, thus giving rise to structures with paradoxical properties. A celebrated example is the following possessive construction from Sorbian, described in Corbett (1987) (diacritics omitted): mojeho bratrowe dzeci my.GEN-SG-MASC brother.ADJ.NOM-PL child.NOM-PL 'my brother's children' The paradoxical thing about this construction is that the noun for "brother" has undergone derivation to an adjectival form, but the possessive adjective "mojeho" still agrees in gender and number with the noun that underlies the derived form. Analogous problems can be observed with nominalisations or participles: * Nominalised verbs can still take adverbial modifiers: "John's stupidly driving the car off the cliff" * Attributive participles in German take adjectival inflections but can still be combined with markers of verbal status like the infinitival "zu" (to): ein leicht zu l�sendes Problem an easy to solve.PART-PRES.NEUTR-SG. problem(NEUTR-SG) 'an easy to solve problem' (lit.: 'an easy to solving problem') * Participles denoting the resultant state of an action still allow the addition of manner adverbs that speak about the ongoing action; a German example from Kratzer (1996): das Kind ist sorgf�ltig gek�mmt the child is carefully combed [stative] Other potential sources of paradoxical structures are compounds, particle verbs, etc. There are various ways of coping with such paradoxical data: For one thing, the category-changing morphology could be assigned a hybrid status, something in between a lexical category and an inflectional (or "functional") element. This of course invites the fundamental question of whether we have to assume a "syntactic category" of, say, adjective over and above the corresponding "lexical" category (of adjective). Alternatively, one could opt for phrasal affixation, i.e. the derivational affix could be projected as a syntactic head that embeds whole phrases. This raises important questions concerning word order or for restrictions on such phrasal embeddings. Another question of interest would be how different grammatical frameworks can cope with such phenomena, possibly avoiding the appearance of any phrase-structural paradoxes at all. >Finally, we also welcome papers that connect these topics to issues in semantics or typology. For example: Are there any special, "hybrid", interpretations of derivations which give rise to morphosyntactic paradoxes? Furthermore: What other kinds of constructions with such mismatches exist, and what cross-linguistic regularities can be found for them? Organisers: Wilhelm Geuder (Universit�t Konstanz) (wilhelm.geuderMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
otenet.gr>FIRST CIRCULAR AND CALL FOR PAPERS INTERNATIONAL LINGUISTICS CONFERENCE Reviewing Linguistic Thought: Perspectives into the 21st Century Department of Language and Linguistics Faculty of English Studies School of Philosophy National and Kapodistrian University of Athens 21-24 May 2002, Athens http://www.uoa.gr/english/Conferences.htm The Conference aims to encourage scholars and researchers from different theoretical backgrounds to discuss the prospects of linguistics in the new millennium. Emphasis will be placed on these views that allow for a dialogue, and even some interaction, between different theoretical models. The 20th century has witnessed the creation of distinct and very often opposing models of linguistic analysis; synchronic vs. diachronic, formal vs. non-formal, modular vs. non-modular, psychological vs. social, relativist vs. non-relativist, are only some of the dichotomies of 20th century linguistics. The Conference invites participants to reconsider such dichotomies, review their impact on the development of linguistic thought and make suggestions on overlapping areas of interest leading to new perspectives. The organizing and scientific committees invite papers that address any of the theoretical issues above by drawing on data from all levels and perspectives of linguistic or interdisciplinary analysis (phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, discourse, psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, etc.). Priority will be given to analyses that provide evidence in favour of abolishing strict dichotomies between theoretical approaches and/or levels of linguistic analysis and as such promote a dialogue among different theoretical perspectives. Opposing evidence is also welcome. Papers will be 20-minute long and will be followed by 10 minutes of discussion. The language of the Conference is English. Plenary Speakers a.. Anastasios Phivos Christidis (University of Thessaloniki) a.. William Croft (University of Manchester) b.. Ray Jackendoff (Brandeis University) c.. Katarzyna Jaczszolt (University of Cambridge) d.. Stephen Levinson (Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen) e.. Eve Sweetser (University of California, Berkeley) f.. Deirdre Wilson (University of London) Organizing Committee a.. Sophia Marmaridour, Faculty of English Studies, University of Athens (smarmariMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue