LINGUIST List 17.176
|
Wed Jan 18 2006
Calls: Snippets
Editor for this issue: Maria Moreno-Rollins
<maria linguistlist.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. Orin
Percus,
Snippets
Message 1: Snippets
|
Date: 18-Jan-2006
From: Orin Percus <snippetsunimi.it>
Subject: Snippets
Full Title: Snippets
Linguistic Field(s): Syntax
Call Deadline: 30-Jan-2006
The submission deadline for Issue 12 of the syntax/semantics minijournal
_Snippets_ is * January 30, 2006 *
As usual, submissions are to be sent to the address snippetsunimi.it
Some relevant excerpts from the _Snippets_ editorial statement follow.
Further details can be found at the _Snippets_ website
(http://www.ledonline.it/snippets/) together with all published issues. The
contents of the most recent issue are:
1. Gabi Danon - Quantification over partitions.
2. Elissa Flagg - Not just constituent negation.
3. Sky Sang-Geun Lee - Japanese/Korean possessive verbal nouns as
inherently intensional.
4. Linton Wang and Eric McCready - The indefiniteness effect.
--------------
Excerpts from the SNIPPETS Editorial Statement:
1. Purpose
The aim of Snippets is to publish specific remarks that motivate research
or that make theoretical points germane to current work. The ideal
contribution is the ideal footnote: a side remark that taken on its own is
not worth lengthy development but that needs to be said.
2. Content
We will publish notes that contribute to the study of syntax and semantics
in generative grammar. The notes are to be brief, self-contained and
explicit. They may do any of the following things:
- point out an empirical phenomenon that goes against accepted
generalizations or that shows that some aspect of a theory is problematic;
- point out unnoticed minimal pairs that fall outside the scope of any
existing theory;
- point out an empirical phenomenon that confirms the predictions of a
theory in an area where the theory has not been tested;
- explicitly describe technical inconsistencies in a theory or in a set of
frequently adopted assumptions;
- explicitly describe unnoticed assumptions that underlie a theory or
assumptions that a theory needs to be supplemented with in order to make
desired predictions;
- call attention to little-known or forgotten literature in which issues of
immediate relevance are discussed.
We also encourage submissions that connect psycholinguistic data to
theoretical issues. A proposal for a pilot experiment in language
acquisition or language processing could make for an excellent snippet.
3. Submission details
We will accept electronic submissions at the address snippetsunimi.it.
Electronic submissions may take the form of (a) the text of an e-mail
message, or (b) an attached file. The attached file should be a simple text
file, a Word file (Mac or Windows), or a Rich Text Format (RTF) file. All
submissions must state the name and affiliation of the author(s), and a
(postal or electronic) return address. Submissions are to be a maximum of
500 words (including examples), with an additional half page allowed for
diagrams, tables and references. Given that we envision the submissions
themselves as footnotes, the submissions may not contain footnotes of their
own. The ideal submission is one paragraph; a submission of five lines is
perfectly acceptable. We will not consider abstracts.
4. Editorial policy
Submissions will be reviewed by our editorial board, and review will be
name-blind both ways. While we guarantee a response within 3 months of the
submission deadline, we will only provide a yes/no response to the
submitter. We will not require revisions (barring exceptional cases). We
allow resubmission (once) of the same piece.
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
While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed
on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.
|
|
