* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
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 17.3334

Wed Nov 15 2006

Calls: Semantics, Syntax/Belgium

Editor for this issue: Dan Parker <danlinguistlist.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.    Jeroen van Craenenbroeck, Alternatives to Cartography


Message 1: Alternatives to Cartography
Date: 15-Nov-2006
From: Jeroen van Craenenbroeck <jeroen.vancraenenbroeckkubrussel.ac.be>
Subject: Alternatives to Cartography



Full Title: Alternatives to Cartography
Short Title: BCGL2

Date: 25-Jun-2007 - 27-Jun-2007
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Contact Person: Jeroen van Craenenbroeck
Meeting Email: < click here to access email >
Web Site: http://www.kubrussel.ac.be/bcgl2

Linguistic Field(s): Semantics; Syntax

Call Deadline: 15-Dec-2006

Meeting Description:

The Center for Research in Syntax, Semantics and Phonology (CRISSP) in Brussels and the Grammatical Models Group at Tilburg University are pleased to announce the second Brussels Conference on Generative Linguistics (BCGL 2). The theme of this year’s conference is Alternatives to cartography, and it will be held in Brussels from June 25 till June 27, 2007.

Conference website: http://www.kubrussel.ac.be/bcgl2

Invited speakers:
- Ad Neeleman (UCL)
- Michal Starke (CASTL)
- Edwin Williams (Princeton University)
- Tanya Reinhart (UiL OTS/Tel Aviv University)
- Michael Wagner (Cornell University)

Second Call For Paper

Theme Description:

In the 1980s generative grammar witnessed the birth and rise of the notion of functional projection. Both in the nominal (Brame 1982, Abney 1983, Hellan 1986) and in the clausal (inflectional) domain (Stowell 1981, Safir 1982, Chomsky 1986), it was recognized that functional material is able to project syntactic structure in conformity with the X-bar-format. This insight soon led to a considerable increase in the inventory of known projections (cf. for example Pollock 1989 on the split IP). Moreover, the assumption that all languages have the same set of morphosyntactic features, with cross-linguistic variation being mainly due to the overt or covert nature of the morphology spelling out those features, had a further proliferation of functional projections as its result. So much so that by the mid to late 1990s each portion of clausal and phrasal structure was assumed to exhibit a richly articulated functional domain. For example, the domain above NP is argued to contain not only a rigidly ordered set of adjectival projections (Cinque 1994) but also a whole series of projections related to definiteness, number, possessive structures, and so on (cf. Matthewson 1998 and references mentioned there). Similarly, while projections such as CP, IP or PP were traditionally considered to be unitary, they have now been split up into a whole string of projections (for CP cf. Rizzi 1997, 2001, 2004a; for IP cf. Cinque 1999, and for PP cf. Koopman 2000, Holmberg 2002, Svenonius 2004).

The basic idea behind the abovementioned line of reasoning is that sentence structure can be represented as a template of fixed positions, each of which can be filled by a limited set of syntactico-semantic elements. This template is taken to be a universal ordered set of functional projections, the specifiers of which serve as merger sites or as landing sites for XP-movement. Cross-linguistic word order variation is then reduced to the absence or presence of such Merge or Move operations. Given that the general goal of this enterprise is to draw a detailed map of a particular portion of the clause, it often goes by the name of cartography (cf. in particular Rizzi 2004b, Cinque 2002, Belletti 2004).

Recently, however, a number of problems have been raised for this approach:

- Certain syntactic phrases cannot be linearly ordered (cf. Bobaljik 1999, Nilsen 2003, Van Craenenbroeck 2006). Given that cartographic analyses crucially depend on complete linear orderings, such data are problematic.

- The LCA (Kayne 1994), which has always been a crucial cornerstone for cartographic analyses in that it disallows adjunction and strictly limits the X-bar-format, has been shown to be no more restrictive than a system in which base-generation applies much more freely (Abels & Neeleman 2006).

- Cartographic analyses both over- and undergenerate. For example, Rizzi's (1997, 2001, 2004a) very rich split CP-domain, which is based on languages like Italian or Hungarian, predicts the occurrence of a host of (strictly ordered) left-peripheral phrases that are absent in languages like Dutch, English or Finnish. On the other hand, Neeleman & Van de Koot (2006) point out that A-bar-scrambling in Dutch allows for a considerably wider array of landing sites than is accommodated in Rizzi's proposals.

- Certain movement operations have been shown to have interpretive effects on other, non-moved phrases (cf. for example Neeleman 1994, Lekakou 2000, Gill & Tsoulas 2004, Neeleman & Van de Koot 2006). In cartographic approaches, however, such interpretive effects are always crucially linked (and limited) to the constituent undergoing the movement operation.

- The relation between syntax and syntactic movement on the one hand and prosody and information structure on the other remains either obscure or dubious in cartographic approaches. On the one hand it seems unlikely that discourse-properties such as the topichood of a particular phrase can drive syntactic movement. Moreover, the addition of a [+topic]- or [+focus]-feature to a particular constituent seems to violate Inclusiveness (cf. Szendroï 2001). On the other hand it is unclear how the prosodic effects of certain discourse-related phenomena can be made to follow from a theory in which movement is solely driven by syntactic feature checking.

In light of these problems it should come as no surprise that a number of alternative proposals have been made to analyze clause structure. We mention some of them here:

- Movement is not triggered by morphosyntactic features situated in functional heads, but rather directly by interface conditions. In particular, syntactic movement takes place in order to facilitate the mapping onto or to serve as the input for a particular interface. This can be the interface with the phonological-prosodic component (cf. Szendroï 2001, Zubizarreta 1998, Vicente 2005), the information structural or pragmatic component (cf. Neeleman & Van de Koot 2006, Lekakou 2000) or the semantic component (cf. Zwart 2004, Nilsen 2003).

- Languages differ as to which morphosyntactic features project their own functional projection and which ones are grouped together on a single functional or lexical head and do not project on their own. This implies that the entire functional domain is not necessarily attested in each language or in each construction (cf. Rizzi 1996, Thraínsson 1996, Giorgi & Pianesi 1997, Bobaljik & Thraínsson 1998).

- Not all word order differences are due to movement (with concomitant postulation of functional projections to host the moved phrases). In particular, the flexibility in base-generated word orders is larger than is traditionally assumed (cf. Neeleman 1994, Neeleman & Weerman 1993, Abels & Neeleman 2006, Neeleman & Reinhart 1998).

- Movement is triggered by the foot rather than the head of the movement chain (cf. Platzack 1996, Van Riemsdijk 1997, Nilsen 1997, Van Craenenbroeck 2006, Nash & Rouveret 1997, Koeneman 2000, Suranyi 2004, Ackema e.a. 1993). This eliminates the need for a wide array of functional heads (and matching specifiers) to trigger movement.

- Word order is not dependent on or determined by (the hierarchical relations in) a single syntactic representation, but arises as a result of linear precedence rules active in particular word order domains (cf. Kathol 2000, Chung & Kim 2003, Jaeger 2003) or as a result of the interaction between different levels of syntactic representation (Williams 2003, Van Riemsdijk 2003).

- Word order is the result of the interaction of a limited number of violable output oriented constraints (cf. Costa 1998, Szendroï 2001, Gutierrez-Bravo 2002, Broekhuis 2000, to appear).

It is clear that these accounts by no means form a homogeneous group and that they display substantial differences in terms of empirical coverage and theoretical assumptions, but there is one thing they all have in common. In particular, they all give up the idea that there is a fixed, invariant structural position for each syntactic element. As such, they all diverge from the cartographic doctrine. We will refer to such theories as flexible.

For the Alternatives to cartography-conference we welcome papers on any topic related to the issues raised above. In particular, we solicit submissions raising new problems for cartography, suggesting solutions and alternatives, discussing particular flexible theories, etc.

Invitied Speakers

The following people have accepted our invitation to present a paper at the Alternatives to cartography-conference:
- Ad Neeleman (UCL)
- Michal Starke (CASTL)
- Edwin Williams (Princeton University)
- Tanya Reinhart (UiL OTS/Tel Aviv University)
- Michael Wagner (Cornell University)

Abstract Guidelines:

Abstracts should not exceed two pages, including data, references and diagrams. Abstracts should be typed in at least 11-point font, with one-inch margins (letter-size; 8''1/2 by 11'' or A4) and a maximum of 50 lines of text per page. Abstracts must be anonymous and submissions are limited to 1 individual and 1 joint abstract per author.

Only electronic submissions will be accepted. Send name, affiliation, e-mail, mailing address and title of the paper in the body of the message. The anonymous abstract should be sent as an attachment, and only abstracts in pdf format will be accepted. Abstracts should be sent to cartographycrissp.be.

Accepted papers are allotted 45 minutes for presentation plus 15 minutes for discussion. There are 15 slots available.

Important Dates:

First call for papers: October 1, 2006
Second call for papers: November 15, 2006

Submission deadline: December 15, 2006

Notification of acceptance: April 15, 2007
Conference: June 25-27, 2007

Organizing Committee:

Henk van Riemsdijk (Tilburg University)
Hans Broekhuis (Leiden University)
Jeroen van Craenenbroeck (CRISSP)
Dany Jaspers (CRISSP)
Guido vanden Wyngaerd (CRISSP)
Lobke Aelbrecht (CRISSP)
Marijke De Belder (CRISSP)
Karen De Clercq (CRISSP)

for more information: infocrissp.be



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.