* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
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 21.2273

Wed May 19 2010

Calls: Syntax/Belgium

Editor for this issue: Di Wdzenczny <dilinguistlist.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!
        1.    Rachel Nye, GIST2: On Clause-Typing and Main Clause Phenomena

Message 1: GIST2: On Clause-Typing and Main Clause Phenomena
Date: 18-May-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

Page Updated: 19-May-2010

Supported in part by the National Science Foundation       About LINGUIST    |   Contact Us       ILIT 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.