* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
LINGUIST List logo Eastern Michigan University Wayne State University *
* People & Organizations * Jobs * Calls & Conferences * Publications * Language Resources * Text & Computer Tools * Teaching & Learning * Mailing Lists * Search *
* *
LINGUIST List 16.1212

Sat Apr 16 2005

Calls: Pragmatics/Socioling/Spanish/UK; Phonology/Norway

Editor for this issue: Amy Wronkowicz <amylinguistlist.org>


As a matter of policy, LINGUIST discourages the use of abbreviations or acronyms in conference announcements unless they are explained in the text. To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.html.
Directory
        1.    Miranda Stewart, Spanish in Society Conference
        2.    Sylvia Blaho, Freedom of Analysis?


Message 1: Spanish in Society Conference
Date: 14-Apr-2005
From: Miranda Stewart <m.m.stewartstrath.ac.uk>
Subject: Spanish in Society Conference


Full Title: Spanish in Society Conference
Short Title: SIS

Date: 07-Apr-2006 - 09-Apr-2006
Location: Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom
Contact Person: Miranda Stewart
Meeting Email: m.m.stewartstrath.ac.uk
Web Site: http://www.lang.soton.ac.uk/symposium/index.html

Linguistic Field(s): Anthropological Linguistics; Applied Linguistics; Discourse
Analysis; Language Description; Pragmatics; Sociolinguistics; Text/Corpus
Linguistics

Subject Language(s): Spanish (SPN)

Call Deadline: 01-Oct-2005

Meeting Description:

The aim of this conference is to bring together researchers working on
sociolinguistics, pragmatics, conversation and discourse analysis, and reflect
the growth of interest in these and related areas of Hispanic linguistics. To
see the programmes for previous related symposia (Surrey, 2002 and Southampton,
2004) go to http://www.surrey.ac.uk/LIS/Spanish/simposio.html and
http://www.lang.soton.ac.uk/symposium/.

You are invited to send abstracts (maximum 300 words). Methodologies used may
range from the theoretical to the empirical and studies should be drawn from the
following areas: Hispanic pragmatics, (interactional) sociolinguistics,
discourse and conversation analysis. You may also submit contrastive studies,
either between different varieties of Spanish or between Spanish and other
languages, or studies in applied linguistics relating to the teaching of Spanish
as a foreign language. Papers will be of 30 minutes duration including time for
discussion. The languages of the conference will be English and Spanish.
Message 2: Freedom of Analysis?
Date: 14-Apr-2005
From: Sylvia Blaho <sylvia.blahohum.uit.no>
Subject: Freedom of Analysis?



Full Title: Freedom of Analysis?

Date: 01-Sep-2005 - 02-Sep-2005
Location: Tromso, Norway
Contact Person: Sylvia Blaho
Meeting Email: freedomhum.uit.no
Web Site: http://uit.no/castl/

Linguistic Field(s): Phonology

Call Deadline: 12-Jun-2005

Meeting Description:

The Center for Advanced Study in Theoretical Linguistics (CASTL) at the
University of Tromso will be hosting a workshop on The Freedom of Analysis in
phonology (see call for papers below) on September 1st and 2nd, 2005. The
workshop will consist of 5 slots for invited talks and an additional 10 slots
for which we are inviting abstracts.

DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION: 12th June 2005.

We are pleased to announce that so far the following speakers have accepted our
invitation:

Chris Golston (CSU Fresno)
Bruce Moren (CASTL Tromso)
Marc van Oostendorp (Meertens)
Christian Uffmann (Marburg)

Partial TRAVEL SUPPORT will be available for presenters without sufficient
financial support from their home institutions. Applications will be evaluated
on an individual basis after acceptance.

CALL FOR PAPERS

The bulk of contemporary research in OT focuses on constraints and their
interaction, yet other aspects of the overall OT model remain largely
unexplored. This workshop takes up the problem of Freedom of Analysis in its
broadest sense, and asks to what extent the very phonological properties of
candidate outputs are restricted by things like representational considerations,
'output viability', the content of CON and the ranking of constraints in EVAL.
The issue of restrictions is an important one, since if it turns out to be
possible to formulate principled restrictions on the space of inputs and output
candidates in a way that does not duplicate the job of the constraints in EVAL,
a more restrictive view of CON and the typology emerges. Sensible discussion of
variation presupposes some conception of the limits on the universal space of
variation.

Much work in OT fails to spell out its representational assumptions adequately,
using representations in a way that sacrifices long-term explanatory goals to
short-term descriptive ones. The fundamental choice between binary features and
unary elements is just as pregnant with ramifications for analyses in OT as,
say, a rule-based framework, both as regards the content of CON and the
predicted typology. The same holds true of theories of the hierarchical
organisation of phonological primitives. Yet, despite the continued relevance of
the prosodic hierarchy and the recent renaissance of feature geometry, many
analyses simply rely in practice on an SPE-style conception of segments as
unordered feature bundles or flat autosegmental structures.

A related representational question involves the extent to which inputs and
candidate outputs must be 'viable outputs', i.e. phonetically interpretable as
they are. For example, to what extent must we allow for inputs with
un(der)specified nodes or floating features?

Representational issues like these figure in defining the absolute variation
space. On the classical conception of Freedom of Analysis, the absolute
variation space must be one and the same as the space of candidates for any
given input.

To take stock of these issues, we invite abstracts dealing with the place of
inviolable restrictions in the OT architecture, addressing questions including
but not limited to the following:

- Do universally inviolable constraints on linguistic structures exist? If so,
are they part of GEN, or EVAL with a fixed top ranking?
- What is the relation between GEN and the function EVAL, the constraint set and
the input?
- Does the generator contain restrictions on the combination of phonological
primitives?
- Would limitations on the generator resolve any of the current challenges to
OT, such as opacity, forbidden repairs, typological overgeneration,
proliferation of candidates or constraints?

IMPORTANT DATES

12th June 2005: Abstract deadline

1st July 2005: Notification of acceptance

1-2 September 2005: Workshop

SUBMISSION GUIDELINES

Abstracts must be submitted electronically in PDF format to freedomhum.uit.no
by 12th June 2005.

All-inclusive abstract length is 2 A4 pages with the following formatting
requirements:
- 2,5 cm margins on top, bottom, left and right,
- in 12 pt Times New Roman (10 pt for references),
- single line spacing, and
- normal character spacing.

The length of the abstract text excluding the title, the name(s) and
affiliation(s) of the author(s), examples, figures and references must not
exceed 50 lines.

Please submit two versions of your abstract, one anonymous and one named. The
named abstract should include your name, affiliation and e-mail address, and
should be called freedom-named-lastname.pdf; the anonymous abstract should be
called freedom-anon-lastname.pdf.
So, for instance, if the author's name is Joe Black, he'll send two files called
freedom-named-black.pdf and freedom-anon-black.pdf.

Please heed these formal requirements and the deadline.

Should you have any questions or comments, please don't hesitate to contact the
organisers.

CONTACT DETAILS

workshop e-mail address: freedomhum.uit.no
homepage: http://uit.no/castl/

Organisers:
Sylvia Blaho (sylvia.blahohum.uit.no)
Patrik Bye (patrik.byehum.uit.no)
Martin Kraemer (martin.kraemerhum.uit.no)



Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue




Please report any bad links or misclassified data

LINGUIST Homepage | Read LINGUIST | Contact us

NSF Logo

While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed
on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.