LINGUIST List 12.228

Mon Jan 29 2001

Calls: UNC Spring Linguistics, Nominal Juxtaposition

Editor for this issue: Jody Huellmantel <jodylinguistlist.org>


As a matter of policy, LINGUIST discourages the use of abbreviations or acronyms in conference announcements unless they are explained in the text.

Directory

  1. Scott Halbritter, UNC Spring Linguistics Colloquium
  2. Maria Koptjevskaja Tamm, Workshop on Nominal Juxtaposition

Message 1: UNC Spring Linguistics Colloquium

Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 07:44:41 -0500
From: Scott Halbritter <mrhalbritterhotmail.com>
Subject: UNC Spring Linguistics Colloquium

Call for Papers

UNC-Chapel Hill, Spring Linguistics Colloquium

Saturday, March 31st, 2001

Department of Linguistics,
318 Dey Hall, CB #3155
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3155

Keynote Speaker: William Ladusaw
University of California, Santa Cruz
Title: "Indefinites and Predicate Saturation"

Speakers are invited to present papers (in English) on the
areas of Theoretical Linguistics and Applied Linguistics.
Presentations will be 20 minutes long followed by a 10 minute discussion.

Deadline for Abstracts: Friday, February 23rd, 2001
Notification of Acceptance: Friday, March 2nd, 2001

Abstract Guidelines:
Length: maximum one page
Format: 1.5 spacing; 1.25" left/right, top/bottom margins
Font: Times New Roman, 12pt.

Email submissions to the attention of Elaine Abousalh:
elainefemail.unc.edu

In addition to pasting your abstract in the body of your e-mail message, 
please send your abstract as a Microsoft Word ATTACHMENT.
This is necessary for further processing of your abstract.
Please be sure to include any non-standard fonts that you use.

Author Information:
Do not include any author information in the body of your abstract.
Following your abstract, include the following information which
will be removed before your abstract is sent out for review:

1. Name(s) and affiliation(s) of the author(s)
2. Address
3. Phone Number
4. Email address of the primary author

Please note that only one abstract from each individual can be considered 
for acceptance. One individual abstract and one
jointly authored abstract may be submitted.
Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue

Message 2: Workshop on Nominal Juxtaposition

Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 12:42:21 +0100
From: Maria Koptjevskaja Tamm <tammling.su.se>
Subject: Workshop on Nominal Juxtaposition

CALL FOR PAPERS

WORKSHOP: Nominal juxtaposition as a morpho-syntactic phenomenon.


As part of the Seventh Himalayan Languages Symposium (Uppsala 
University, Sweden, 7-9 September 2001), I am organizing a workshop 
on nominal juxtaposition in Himalayan languages.

Whereas the English NP "a cup of tea" involves an overt marker "of" 
to relate the two nominals, "cup" and "tea", its Swedish counterpart, 
"en kopp kaffe", lacks any such marker and may count as a 
construction involving nominal juxtaposition. We find prototypical 
instances of nominal juxtaposition when

... there are two nominals in contiguity with each other
... the whole combination is a syntactic construction
... there is no overt segmental marker for relating the two nominals to 
each other
... whereas intonation and word order are crucial

A nominal here refers to a noun, a noun with various modifiers or a 
noun phrase.

Juxtaposition on the whole has hardly received any attention in 
theoretical, primarily non-functional, linguistics. Significantly, it 
is not even mentioned in the index of the phenomena considered in 
Asher's (ed.) "The international encyclopaedia of languages in 
linguistics". A quick glance through the indices in a score of books 
on various syntactic and morphological theories gave no result 
either. For morphology, juxtaposition is not interesting simply 
because there is no overt marking involved, whereas the focus of most 
syntactical theories has been on various processes and the like, much 
more than on marking or the absence thereof.

	Absence of overt material for the expression of a certain 
content has otherwise been discussed in other connections. Thus, zero 
morphemes within larger paradigms constitute one of the traditional 
interests within various morphological theories; whereas syntactic 
theories abound with empty categories and syntactic zeroes and are 
pre-occupied with accounting for their distribution and various other 
properties.

	This lack of interest in nominal juxtaposition is, however, 
hardly justified. In particular, nominal juxtaposition seems to be 
universal and occurs in languages which otherwise are structurally 
very different. The aim of the workshop is to shed light on this 
phenomenon in the Himalayan languages, and cross-linguistically.

	The workshop is intended to focus on questions such as these:

... In what functions nominal juxtaposition can be used in one language 
and across languages? For instance, in possessive NPs (Peter's 
house), modificational NPs (a stone house), pseudopartitives (a cup 
of tea), coordination (mother and brother), nominal predication 
(Peter is my brother), apposition (my brother Peter) etc.

... What other means can be used for relating two nominals to each 
other in the same language? What factors motivate the choice of a 
juxtapositional construction as opposed to the other types of nominal 
constructions in the language?

... Can we find cross-linguistic generalizations on the use of 
juxtapositional constructions as opposed to constructions involving 
other morpho-syntactic means?

... How can nominal juxtaposition be delimited from other phenomena, 
such as compounding, on the one hand, or simple contiguity of two 
nominals which together do not build any constituent?

... What is the role of intonation in juxtapositional constructions?

... How does juxtaposition emerge? Juxtapositional constructions abound 
in child language, pidgins, foreigner talk and other language 
varieties which are characterized by morpho-syntactic simplicity; in 
these cases juxtaposition has not undergone any grammaticalization at 
all. On the other hand, there are clear instances of developments 
whereby overt morpho-syntactic markers gradually disappear and where 
juxtaposition is the final product of grammaticalization. What do we 
know about the history of juxtaposition in particular cases? Is there 
any way for distinguishing between the two different instances?

We welcome all contributions taking juxtaposition seriously - 
detailed descriptions of the relevant phenomena in one particular 
Himalayan language, cross-linguistic studies, theoretical 
discussions, historical essays etc. Abstracts of one page, including 
author's name and affiliation, title of the paper, mailing address, 
and e-mail address, should be submitted to Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm by 
February 2001 at the addresses below. Please indicate the desired 
length of your talk (15 min - 30 min - 45 min).

Workshop organization and contact information:
Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm
Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University
106 91 Stockholm, Sweden
E-mail: tammling.su.se
Fax: +46-8-155389

Deadline for abstracts: 20 February 2001.

News about the Seventh Himalayan symposium (including the workshops) 
is posted on the symposium's Web page at 
http://www.afro.uu.se/HLS-7.html

Maria Koptjevskaja Tamm
Dept. of linguistiscs, Stockholm university			Vaesterled 166
106 91 Stockholm, Sweden					167 
72, Bromma, Sweden
Tel.: +46-8-16 26 20					Tel.: +46-8-26 90 91
http://www.ling.su.se/staff/tamm
Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue