LINGUIST List 12.801

Thu Mar 22 2001

Calls: L2 Research/Japanese, Argument Structure

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

Directory

1. Heather Marsden, Implications from Second Language Acquisition Research for Teachers of Japanese
2. Peter Ackema, The Role of Agreement in Argument Structure

The First Durham TJSL Workshop:
Implications from Second Language Acquisition Research for Teachers of Japanese

23-24 June 2001
Department of East Asian Studies, University of Durham

http://www.dur.ac.uk/EastAsianStudies/workshop.htm


*************CALL FOR PAPERS*************

_________________________________________________

We are pleased to announce a workshop on Implications from Second 
Language Acquisition Research for Teachers of Japanese at the University 
of Durham on 23-24 June 2001. The workshop aims to bring together 
professionals in Teaching Japanese as a Second Language (TJSL) within 
and outside of the UK, to enhance awareness of Second Language 
Acquisition (SLA) research and to consider implications for and 
applications to classroom teaching.

Keynote Speakers
Dr. Tadashi Sakamoto, Nanzan University (SLA and TJSL)
Dr. Makiko Hirakawa, Tokyo International University (SLA)
Dr. Mitsuhiko Ota, University of Edinburgh (SLA)
Dr. Martha Young-Scholten, University of Durham (SLA)
_________________________________________________

Abstracts are invited for presentations on SLA research with particular 
reference to Teaching Japanese as a Second Language. Papers will be 
allotted 20 minutes for presentation and 10 minutes for discussion.

Extended deadline for abstracts: 1 May 2001.

Please submit two copies of your proposal (one A4 page, one copy with 
your name, affiliation and e-mail address) in English via e-mail or 
regular mail to:

Mika Kizu <mika.kizudurham.ac.uk>
Department of East Asian Studies, University of Durham
Elvet Hill, Durham DH1 3TH, England. 


The First Durham TJSL Workshop is supported by Japan 2001 and the 
British Association for Teaching Japanese as a Foreign Language.

Second Call for Papers:

The Role of Agreement in Argument Structure

The Utrecht institute of Linguistics OTS organizes a 
workshop on the role of agreement in the syntactic
realization of argument structure, to be held on 31 August
and 1 September at Utrecht University.

Invited speakers: Artemis Alexiadou
 Mark Baker
 Eloise Jelinek

For polysynthetic languages it has been argued that overt
NPs are syntactic adjuncts and that a predicate's argument
slots are satisfied by agreement morphemes on the verb
(Jelinek 1984) or pro (Baker 1996). Similarly, in the realm
of pro-drop the question has been raised whether a structural
subject position filled with pro in apparently subjectless
clauses needs to be assumed or if the agreement morphology can
satisfy the EPP(Barbosa 1995, Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou 1998).
On the other hand, it has already been proposed for VSO
languages that Agr is an incorporated clitic. In Irish, for
example, in pro drop constructions there is full agreement on
the verb, whereas this is absent when there is an overt subject
(cf. McCloskey and Hale 1984). Differences between VSO languages
with an agreement alternation and SVO languages without seem
hard to explain if Agr is argumental in both. Perhaps the
opposite perspective, where, instead of rich Agr licensing pro,
poor Agr is taken to need licensing by an overt subject (e.g.
Speas 1995, Davis 2000), offers new insights here. Broadening the
range of questions, how can partial pro drop (pro drop only in
some person/number/tenses) be accounted for? What is the role of
infinitival Agr (or the lack of it) in realizing the verb's
argument structure? Is there a difference between unpronounced
subjects in finite or infinite clauses respectively ? Or if not
(Borer 1989), how can the unpronounced subject in infinitivals
get its interpretation in the absence of agreement ? Can similar
issues and questions that arise with respect to object agreement
and agreement in DPs (e.g. adjectival agreement) be attacked from
similar angles ? Is there, perhaps, a general semantic correlate
to agreement morphology?

A more detailed description of the topic can be found at:
http://www-uilots.let.uu.nl/events/events.htm

We invite abstracts for 30-minute talks on one or more of the above
topics. Particularly welcome are papers that take a comparative
and/or typological perspective (making a systematic comparison of
the effect of the form of the Agr paradigm on the realization of
arguments in e.g. polysynthetic versus configurational languages,
or in pro drop languages versus non-pro-drop languages, or in
ergative-absolutive versus nominative-accusative languages, etc.).

Speakers will be partially reimbursed for their expenses.

Anonymous abstracts of max. 2 pages, with a separate page
indicating author's name and affiliation, title of the paper, mailing
address, and e-mail address, can be submitted

by email to: ackemalet.uu.nl (under the header 'abstract')

or by regular mail (5 copies) to: Workshop on Agreement and Argument
Structure, c/o Peter Ackema, UiL OTS, Trans 10, 3512 JK Utrecht,
The Netherlands.

Deadline for receipt of abstracts: 30 April 2001.

Notification of acceptance/rejection by 31 May.

Organizing committee: Peter Ackema, Patrick Brandt, Maaike 
Schoorlemmer, Fred Weerman
(ackema/brandt/schoorlemmer/weerman)let.uu.nl