* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
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 18.2445

Mon Aug 20 2007

Calls: Linguistic Theories,Morphology,Psycholinguistics/Austria

Editor for this issue: Jeremy Taylor <jeremylinguistlist.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.
        1.    Stela Manova, 13th International Morphology Meeting: Affix Ordering

Message 1: 13th International Morphology Meeting: Affix Ordering
Date: 19-Aug-2007
From: Stela Manova <stela.manovaunivie.ac.at>
Subject: 13th International Morphology Meeting: Affix Ordering
E-mail this message to a friend

Full Title: 13th International Morphology Meeting: Affix Ordering
Short Title: IMM13 - Affix Ordering

Date: 03-Feb-2008 - 06-Feb-2008
Location: Vienna, Austria
Contact Person: Stela Manova
Meeting Email: stela.manovaunivie.ac.at
Web Site: http://www.wu-wien.ac.at/inst/roman/imm13/

Linguistic Field(s): Linguistic Theories; Morphology; Psycholinguistics; Semantics

Call Deadline: 30-Sep-2007

Meeting Description:

Affix ordering in typologically different languages: approaches, problems and

Workshop during the 13th International Morphology Meeting, February 3rd-6th
(Sunday-Wednesday), 2008, Vienna, Austria

Website of IMM13: http://www.wu-wien.ac.at/inst/roman/imm13

Reference website for the workshop:

Sponsored by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF)

Invited Speaker: Mark Aronoff (Stony Brook University)

Second Call for Papers

Questions concerning affix ordering and restrictions on affix combinations
belong to the central ones in morphological theory (see e.g. Spencer 2006 for a
useful survey). Proposals put forward thus far can be classified as:

1) typological (e.g. inflection follows derivation, cf. Greenberg 1963; with
respect to the verb stem, the order of verb inflection morphemes is consistent
across languages, cf. Bybee 1985);

2) phonological (reflecting the idea that morphology and phonology work in
conjunction, i.e. the so-called stratal approach, based on the principle of
Level Ordering; cf. Siegel 1974, Kiparsky 1982, Mohanan 1986, Giegerich 1999,
among others);

3) syntactic (morphological operations in terms of affix ordering 'mirror'
syntactic operations, cf. Baker 1985, and Grimshaw's 1986 criticism of Baker's

4) semantic (based on the notion of semantic scope, cf. Rice 2000; see also the
'relevance principle' in Bybee 1985);

5) psycholinguistic (based on the notion of parsability, i.e. what is more
easily parsable follows what is less so, cf. Hay 2003); and

6) morphological (selectional restrictions encoded in the affix or/and in the
base, including closing suffixes (i.e. suffixes that do not allow addition of
further suffixes) are responsible for affix ordering, cf. Fabb 1988; Plag 1996;
Szymanek 2000; Aronoff and Fuhrhop 2002).

As is often the case in linguistic theory, all the above approaches work
properly to some extent, but no approach is perfect, which has made linguists
integrate insights from different approaches (e.g. Hay & Plag 2004 who combine
psycholinguistic and morphological arguments). However, an important problem
remains. Some of the proposals have never been tested against data from (a)
language(s) typologically different from that/those for which they have been
originally formulated. For example, the recently suggested (probabilistic)
criterion of parsability has been applied only to English derivational
morphology. Thus although parsability has been claimed to be a universal
restriction on affix ordering working particularly well in combination with
selectional restrictions (Hay & Plag 2004), it remains unclear how this
criterion and proposals in which it participates account for the fact that in
languages with rich inflectional morphology, for example the Slavic ones,
inflectional suffixes are, by rule, vowel initial, often cause stress changes
and palatalizations (i.e. are difficult to parse) but follow derivational suffixes.

Thus this workshop aims to bring together morphologists working on affix
ordering in languages representing different morphological types. Papers
applying morphological, psycholinguistic and semantic approaches to languages
with rich inflectional morphology, or comparing such languages with English, are
particularly welcome, although the workshop is open to problem-solving papers
based on any language and any approach.

Aronoff, Mark & Nanna Fuhrhop 2002. Restricting Suffix Combinations in German
and English: Closing Suffixes and the Monosuffix Constraint. Natural Language
and Linguistic Theory 20, 451-490.
Baker, Mark 1985. The Mirror principle and Morphosyntactic Explanation.
Linguistic Inquiry 16, 373-415.
Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology. A Study of the Relation between Meaning and
Form. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Fabb, Nigel 1988. English suffixation is constrained only by selectional
restrictions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6, 527-539.
Giegerich, Heinz J. 1999. Lexical Strata in English. Morphological Causes,
Phonological Effects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963 (ed.). Universals of language. Cambridge, Ma: MIT Press.
Grimshaw, Jane 1986. A Morphosyntactic Explanation for the Mirror Principle.
Linguistic Inquiry 17, 745-749.
Hay, Jennifer 2003. Causes and Consequences of Word Structure. New York and
London: Routledge.
Hay, Jennifer & Ingo Plag 2004. What constrains possible suffix combinations? On
the interaction of grammatical and processing restrictions in derivational
morphology. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22, 565-596.
Kiparsky, Paul 1982. Lexical morphology and phonology. In Linguistics in the
Morning Calm: Selected Papers from SICOL-1981, Linguistic Society of Korea.
Seoul: Hanshin, 3-91.
Mohanan, Karuvannur P. 1986. The Theory of Lexical Phonology. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Plag, Ingo 1996. Selectional restrictions in English suffixation revisited. A
reply to Fabb (1988). Linguistics 34, 769-798.
Rice, Keren 2000. Morpheme Order and Semantic Scope. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Siegel, Dorothy 1974. Topics in English Morphology. Ph.D. Thesis. MIT.
Spencer, Andrew 2006. Morphological universals. In R. Mairal and J. Gil (eds.),
Linguistic Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 101-129.
Szymanek, Bogdan 2000. On morphotactics: Closing morphemes in English. In B.
Rozwadowska (ed.), PASE Papers in Language Studies. Wroc?aw: Aksel, 311-320.

Abstract Submission

Abstracts (for 20-minute talks with a 10-minute discussion) must be at most one
page long (margins: 2.5 cm or 1 inch; size of characters: at least 12 points;
spacing: single). An optional second page is permitted for data, figures and

Please submit your abstract in both .pdf and .doc formats to
stela.manovaunivie.ac.at. The two files should be sent as attachments. Include
the following information in the body of the e-mail message:
(1) title of paper
(2) author's name
(3) email address
(4) affiliation.

Due to numerous requests, the deadline for submission is extended to September
30th, 2007.

We hope to be able to announce acceptances by October 31st, 2007.


Stela Manova (University of Vienna) & Bogdan Szymanek (The John Paul II Catholic
University of Lublin)

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.