* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
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 16.1475

Tue May 10 2005

Confs: Linguistic Theories/Syntax/Cambridge, MA, USA

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


To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.html.
Directory
        1.    Stanley Dubinsky, New Horizons in the Grammar of Raising and Control (Workshop)


Message 1: New Horizons in the Grammar of Raising and Control (Workshop)
Date: 08-May-2005
From: Stanley Dubinsky <dubinskysc.edu>
Subject: New Horizons in the Grammar of Raising and Control (Workshop)


New Horizons in the Grammar of Raising and Control (Workshop)

Date: 08-Jul-2005 - 10-Jul-2005
Location: Cambridge, MA, United States of America
Contact: Stanley Dubinsky
Contact Email: dubinskysc.edu
Meeting URL: http://www.cla.sc.edu/LING/grc/

Linguistic Field(s): Linguistic Theories; Syntax

Meeting Description:

New Horizons in the Grammar of Raising and Control
LSA Linguistic Institute Workshop, Cambridge, MA
8-10 July 2005

Raising and Control are among a handful of syntactic phenomena which have been
central concerns of generative syntax since the 1960s and must be factored into
every comprehensive model. The analysis of these constructions in a particular
framework usually rests on key assumptions underlying that framework. Thus,
Raising and Control provide an excellent window into particular generative
theories of syntax, and are an exceptionally useful tool for measuring the
empirical validity of their claims. Since the publication of Rosenbaum 1967
(The grammar of English predicate complement constructions) and Postal 1974 (On
Raising), attention to these constructions has persevered through each
significant paradigm shift in generative theories of syntax, and crested with
the rise of each new theory of grammar. Interest in these constructions has
also broadened over the past three decades (from an initial focus on English and
French) to include analyses of similar (or apparently similar) grammatical
phenomena in a wide range of languages. Driven in part by the rise of the
Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1995), interest in Raising and Control has once
again surged, and some of the most recent analyses venture into relatively under
explored languages and/or grammatical phenomena. Renewed attention to these two
central constructions, combined with the vastly larger empirical basis for
analyzing them, makes this a particularly appropriate time to re examine their
status in linguistic theory.

''New Horizons in the Grammar of Raising and Control'', supported in part by a
National Science Foundation grant, is a project consisting of a three hour panel
that was held at the January 2005 Linguistic Society of America annual meeting,
and a workshop at the July 2005 LSA Linguistic Institute. The aim of the January
2005 panel was to articulate a set of research questions to be addressed at the
July 2005 workshop. Issues arising from this panel included the following:

1. What are the empirical properties of Raising and Control? How can each be
clearly identified, or has the question become irrelevant? With the movement
theory of control proposed by Hornstein 1999, and adopted in subsequent work
(e.g., Boeckx and Hornstein 2003, 2004, 2005; Polinsky 2005, Polinsky and
Potsdam 2002, 2003), the ''base generated'' analysis of Copy Raising (Potsdam
and Runner 2001) and others, for some (but by no means all), the line between
Raising and Control has become less and less prominent. Is the distinction
empirically motivated or simply an artifact of terminology inherited from a rich
history of work in generative linguistics?

2. What constructions (besides the canonical ones) might be subject to a
Raising or Control analysis? What constructions that have been treated as
Raising or Control might turn out not to be so? Raising or Control have been
posited for cases (such as Japanese) in which the complement is finite and has
an overt complementizer. Backward Control (in which the controllee rather than
the controller is overt) has been posited for Tsez and Malagasy (Polinsky and
Potsdam 2002, 2003). It has been observed that Control, but not Raising, is
possible in nominalizations. Possessor possessee relations expressed outside of
the NP have been characterized as Possessor Raising (and sometimes Possessor
Control).

3. Besides the core class of Obligatory Control, what classes of Control must
be recognized? What is the relation of Partial Control, Arbitrary Control, and
more generally non Obligatory Control to the canonical cases (Landau 2000,
Jackendoff and Culicover 2003)? In some cases, the Control and Raising label has
also been applied to constructions in which the controlled nominal or target of
raising is overt (i.e. Copy Raising). In many instances Copy Raising combines
with issues of finiteness or Possessor Raising. In other cases, the relation
between the controller and controllee is not local (i.e. Super Equi or Long
distance Control).

4. What are the syntactic attributes of Raising and Control? What part does
tense, or finiteness, or clausal completeness play in restricting their
distribution? How are restrictions on the controllee and raisee (e.g. the fact
that they must be complement subjects) determined? And what is the role of
semantics in these determinations?


Workshop Program (list of presentations and posters)

For full workshop schedule, visit:
http://www.cas.sc.edu/ling/grc/

Plenary Talks

Cedric Boeckx (Harvard University)
Norbert Hornstein (University of Maryland)
Locality and the emergence of non obligatory control

Maria Polinsky (University of California, San Diego)
Eric Potsdam (University of Florida)
Backward raising: Theoretical and empirical options

Susi Wurmbrand (University of Connecticut)
Tense in infinitives


Papers/Papers/Papers

Michael Barrie (University of Toronto)
Control and Wh infinitivals

Cedric Boeckx (Harvard University)
Norbert Hornstein (University of Maryland)
Jairo Nunes (University of São Paulo/University of Maryland)
Phonetically realized PROs and the movement analysis of Obligatory Control

Jeroen van Craenenbroeck (Katholieke Universiteit Brussel)
Johan Rooryck (Universiteit Leiden)
Guido Vanden Wyngaerd (Katholieke Universiteit Brussel)
If control raises, it fails to copy, reconstruct, or linearize

Christopher Hirsch (MIT)
Ken Wexler (MIT)
What children seem to think about seem

Hajime Hoji (University of Southern California)
Major object analysis of the so called Raising to Object construction in Japanese

Heejeong Ko (MIT)
Association via Raising: Inalienable possession construction in Korean

George Kotzoglou (University of Reading)
Dimitra Papangeli (Ecole Normale Superieure, Paris)
Not really ECM, not exactly control: The 'quasi ECM' construction in Greek

Marcello Modesto (University of São Paulo)
It talks like movement, it walks like movement ... but it's not movement

Johan Rooryck (Universiteit Leiden)
Control via selection

Ivy Sichel (Hebrew University of Jerusalem)
Raising in Hebrew and English DP

James Yoon (University of Illinois)
Raising of major arguments in Korean and Japanese


Posters/Posters/Posters

Gabriela Alboiu (York University)
Moving forward with Romanian Backward Control and Raising

Hyuna Byun (University of Southern California)
Yongjoon Cho (University of Southern California)
The Absence of PBC effects in Raising to Object constructions in Korean

Konstantia Kapetangianni (University of Michigan)
T. Daniel Seely (Eastern Michigan University)
Control in Greek: It's another good move

Sean Madigan (University of Delaware)
Exhaustive and Partial Control in Korean: Long Distance caki as an overt form of PRO

Cilene Rodrigues (University of Brasilia)
Agreement and Flotation in Romance Control Configurations

Vassilios Spyropoulos (University of the Aegean, Rhodes)
Finiteness and Control in Greek

Yukiko Tsuboi (University of Southern California)
On Proper Binding Condition effects in RtoO in Japanese

Cherlon Ussery (University of Massachusetts, Amherst)
A control account of external possession in English


Registration

The registration form for the workshop on New Horizons in the Grammar of Raising
and Control can be accessed in PDF form at:
http://www.cas.sc.edu/ling/grc/registration.pdf

Cost:
Early registration (before June 15)
$30 Faculty
$15 Student
Late registration (after June 15)
$40 Faculty
$20 Student

Please fill in the form, save it and send it to dubinskysc.edu as an attachment
or mail it together with your check (payable to NHGRC workshop) to the following
address:

Stanley Dubinsky
Linguistics Program
Welsh Humanities Office Bldg
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29210

Workshop participants need not to register for the LSA Institute
(http://web.mit.edu/lsa2005/) if they just come for the workshop, but those who
plan to stay around for a week (or more) should plan to register as Institute
affiliates ( $350/week).


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.