LINGUIST List 21.1833
|
Thu Apr 15 2010
Calls: Syntax/Belgium
Editor for this issue: Kate Wu
<kate linguistlist.org>
|
LINGUIST is pleased to announce the launch of an exciting new feature: Easy Abstracts! Easy Abs is a free abstract submission and review facility designed to help conference organizers and reviewers accept and process abstracts online. Just go to: http://www.linguistlist.org/confcustom, and begin your conference customization process today! With Easy Abstracts, submission and review will be as easy as 1-2-3!
|
Directory
1. Rachel
Nye,
GIST2: On Clause-Typing and Main Clause Phenomena
Message 1: GIST2: On Clause-Typing and Main Clause Phenomena
|
Date: 14-Apr-2010
From: Rachel Nye <rachel.nyeugent.be>
Subject: GIST2: On Clause-Typing and Main Clause Phenomena
 E-mail this message to a friend
Full Title: GIST2: On Clause-Typing and Main Clause Phenomena
Short Title: GIST2
Date: 29-Sep-2010 - 01-Oct-2010
Location: Ghent, Belgium
Contact Person: Rachel Nye
Meeting Email: gistinfougent.be
Web Site: http://www.gist.ugent.be/mainclausephenomena
Linguistic Field(s): Syntax
Call Deadline: 16-Jun-2010
Meeting Description:
The focus of this workshop is on the relation between clause typing and Main
Clause Phenomena. For more specific questions related to this topic, please
check the complete call for papers on the conference website.
Call for Papers
Theme Description
Dating back to seminal work by Joe Emonds (Emonds 1970, 1976), there is a
longstanding tradition that identifies a set of syntactic phenomena as 'Main
Clause Phenomena' (henceforth MCP) or 'Root Transformations'. Such phenomena are
restricted to root clauses and a limited set of embedded clauses. MCP that have
been identified for English include the following: subject auxiliary inversion
(including negative inversion), argument fronting (both topicalization and
focalization), VP preposing, preposing around be, locative inversion, left
dislocation, tag formation, subject omission, and imperatives.
An important research topic in this area concerns the characterization of the
properties that distinguish the embedded clauses that allow MCP from those that
do not. Various attempts have been made to characterize the relevant contrast in
terms of positive or negative licensing of the MCP. In their influential paper,
Hooper and Thompson (1973) propose that the distinctive factor that
characterizes embedded clauses allowing MCP is 'assertion', seen as a
semantic/pragmatic condition (1973: 495). In some form or other, Hooper and
Thompson's proposal has been adopted and elaborated by a number of researchers
(see for example Green 1976, 1990, 1996, Krifka 2001, Sawada and Larson 2004).
However, as observed in Heycock (2006), the precise identification of the
semantic property that sets aside embedded domains that allow MCP remains
elusive and often the reasoning seems circular. Moreover, Hooper and Thompson's
(1973: 484-5) own discussion of a finiteness requirement suggests that syntax
plays a part. In view of this, there have been recent attempts at a syntactic
reinterpretation of Hooper and Thompson's 'assertion hypothesis', associating
the encoding of assertion with a specific functional projection ('ForceP', Rizzi
1997) in the left periphery (cf. Bayer 2001, Julien 2008), which, by hypothesis,
is unavailable in the domains that resist MCP (Emonds 2004, Haegeman 2003,
Meinunger 2004, 2005; see also Basse 2008 for a minimalist reinterpretation in
terms of defective phases).
Other syntactic approaches have maintained that, in the contexts that resist
MCP, a conflict arises between the syntactic properties of the MCP and those of
the embedding clause (Emonds 1976, Iwakura 1978, Haegeman 2010). Earlier
proposals are in need of updating in light of current frameworks (cartography,
minimalism), and more recent proposals (Haegeman 2010) have only been formulated
for a subset of MCP and clause types. In order to make these syntactic proposals
more precise, a better understanding of both the syntax of MCP themselves and of
the syntactic derivation of different clause types is required. The latter
crucially depends on further refinement of the syntactic properties that
differentiate various clause types, so that potential link between the
derivation of (a subset of) MCP and their relations with clause typing can be
formalised.
Abstract Guidelines
Abstracts are invited for a 30-minute presentation followed by 10 minutes of
discussion. An author may submit at most one single and one joint abstract.
Abstracts should be anonymous, and at most 2 pages in 12-point font with 1"
margins, including data and references.
Authors are requested to submit their abstracts using EasyAbstracts
(http://linguistlist.org/confcustom/GIST2). Only submissions through this system
will be considered. Please direct all the questions related to the submission
procedure to: gistinfougent.be.
Important Dates
abstract submission deadline: June 16
notification date: 20 August
conference: 29 September - 1 October
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.
|
|
