From: Joanna Blaszczak <joanna.blaszczakgooglemail.com>
Subject: Clausal Architecture
E-mail this message to a friend
Full Title: Clausal Architecture
Short Title: PLM2009-CA
Date: 02-Sep-2009 - 05-Sep-2009
Location: Gniezno, Poland
Contact Person: Joanna Blaszczak
Meeting Email: joanna.blaszczakgooglemail.com
Web Site: http://ifa.amu.edu.pl/plm/
Linguistic Field(s): Syntax
Call Deadline: 01-May-2009
Clausal Architecture: How Universal/Variable Is It?
In accordance with the leitmotif of the 40th PLM 'Variants, Variability,
Variation', this workshop focuses on variability and variation with regard to
Call for Papers
With Chomsky (1998 et seq.), it is suggested that C, T and little v are core
functional categories. Assuming this to be true, at least three questions arise.
First, are C, T, and v universal categories, obligatory present in all languages
or are there languages missing one (or more) of these categories (or having some
other functional categories instead)?
Second, how much variation is there in clausal structure? What functional
categories, apart from the suggested three core functional categories, are
syntactically relevant? How much variability is required/allowed here? Do we
need VoiceP, AspP, or TransitivityPhrase in addition to vP (cf. Alexiadou,
Anagnastopolou, and Everaert 2004, MacDonald 2008, Bowers 2002)? Do we need a
special 'EPP'-projection in addition to TP (cf. Branigan 1992, Babyonyshev
1996)? How much evidence do we have for splitting the VP, TP or CP into several
Third, how much variation and variability is required with regard to the core
functional categories themselves? Chomsky (1999) differentiates between
phi-complete T (i.e., having a complete set of phi-features and thus entering
into the case-agreement system) and defective T, which is not selected by C and
which does not enter into case-agreement system. By analogy, complete and
defective vP's have been distinguished (cf. Harves 2002, Lavine and Freidin
2002). What does it mean that v is defective? How many different v's are there
(cf. Alexiadou, Anagnastopoulou, and Everaert 2004, Kratzer 1994, 2000, and
Harley and Noyer 1998)? How much variation is allowed in this system? For
example, can a complete v be selected by a defective T or can both T and v be
defective (cf. Lavine and Freidin 2002, Harves 2005)? Can C be defective as well
(cf. Gallego 2007)?
More recently (cf. Chomsky 2005), it is assumed that T and, by analogy also V,
do not have phi-features on their own, but inherit them from the phase heads, C
and v, respectively. How much variation is allowed in the system? Does C (and by
analogy v) always have to pass its phi-feature on to T (and V, respectively), or
is it possible that C (or v) retains its phi-features? Are the features that are
relevant for checking placed on one head (probe) or is something like
split-probes (pairs of heads that complement each other and jointly have
features relevant for checking) allowed (cf. Witkoś 2003)?
We invite abstracts related to any of the issues mentioned above.
Each paper in the oral sessions will be given 30 minutes, including 10 minutes
for discussion. The language of the conference is English.
Please send an one-page abstract (12 point font, reasonable margins, preferably
PDF) to joanna.blaszczakgooglemail.com.
Submission deadline: May 1 2009
Notification of acceptance: June 1 2009.
Our venue, Collegium Europaeum Gnesnense, is located in the city of Gniezno. The
main CEG building has lecture halls, computer labs, and offices. Lodging for PLM
participants will be provided in two high standard halls of residence with
single and double rooms, each with a private bathroom. The campus is located
within walking distance (20 minutes) from the city centre.
Looking forward to seeing you in Gniezno!
This Year the LINGUIST List hopes to raise $60,000. This money will go to help
keep the List running by supporting all of our Student Editors for the coming year.
See below for donation instructions, and don't forget to check out our Fund Drive
2009 LINGUIST List Restaurant and join us for a delightful treat!
There are many ways to donate to LINGUIST!
You can donate right now using our secure credit card form at
Alternatively you can also pledge right now and pay later. To do so, go to:
For all information on donating and pledging, including information on how to
donate by check, money order, or wire transfer, please visit:
The LINGUIST List is under the umbrella of Eastern Michigan University and as such
can receive donations through the EMU Foundation, which is a registered 501(c) Non
Profit organization. Our Federal Tax number is 38-6005986. These donations can be
offset against your federal and sometimes your state tax return (U.S. tax payers
only). For more information visit the IRS Web-Site, or contact your financial advisor.
Many companies also offer a gift matching program, such that they will match any
gift you make to a non-profit organization. Normally this entails your contacting
your human resources department and sending us a form that the EMU Foundation fills
in and returns to your employer. This is generally a simple administrative procedure
that doubles the value of your gift to LINGUIST, without costing you an extra penny.
Please take a moment to check if your company operates such a program.
Thank you very much for your support of LINGUIST!
Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue