* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
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 21.2477

Fri Jun 04 2010

Calls: Disc Analysis, Pragmatics, Semantics/France

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.    Anamaria Falaus, Workshop on Alternative-Based Semantics

Message 1: Workshop on Alternative-Based Semantics
Date: 03-Jun-2010
From: Anamaria Falaus <anamariafalausgmail.com>
Subject: Workshop on Alternative-Based Semantics
E-mail this message to a friend

Full Title: Workshop on Alternative-Based Semantics

Date: 29-Oct-2010 - 30-Oct-2010
Location: Nantes, France
Contact Person: Anamaria Falaus
Meeting Email: anamariafalausgmail.com
Web Site: http://www.alternative-semantics.univ-nantes.fr/

Linguistic Field(s): Discourse Analysis; Pragmatics; Semantics

Call Deadline: 10-Jun-2010

Meeting Description:

The 'Laboratoire de Linguistique de Nantes' (LLING EA 3827) is pleased to
invite abstracts for submissions to a workshop on alternative-based
semantics, to be held at the University of Nantes, France, October 29-30,

Invited speakers:
Gennaro Chierchia (Harvard University)
Emmanuel Chemla (Institut Jean Nicod)
Paula Menéndez-Benito (University of Goettingen)
Maribel Romero (University of Konstanz)
Daniel Büring (UCLA) (to be confirmed)

Important dates:
Deadline for submission: June 10, 2010
Notification of acceptance: July 31, 2010
Conference dates: October 29-30, 2010

Meeting description:
Ever since Hamblin's proposal for the interpretation of questions (1973), a
variety of linguistic phenomena have been argued to have a semantics that
makes reference to alternatives: not only interrogative constructions
(Karttunen 1977), but also focus (Rooth 1985, 1992, Krifka 1993, Beck
2006), scalar implicatures (e.g. Chierchia 2001, Fox 2006, Keshet 2006,
Spector 2006, Katzir 2008), disjunction (Geurts 2003, Simons 2004, Alonso-
Ovalle 2006, 2008), topichood (Büring 1997), mood (Villalta 2000),
comparatives (Morzycki 2009), quantifiers and indefinites, in particular
polarity-sensitive and free-choice indefinites (e.g. Krifka 1995, Lahiri 1998,
Giannakidou 2001, Kratzer & Shimoyama 2002, Jayez & Tovena 2005,
Farkas 2006, Chierchia 2006, Aloni 2007, Alonso-Ovalle & Menéndez-
Benito 2009).

The range of application of alternative-based semantics has been
constantly expanding. As a result, a wide array of alternative-based systems
have been proposed. These systems differ in the way they conceive the
source of alternatives, the status of alternatives, or the precise way in which
they are exploited in a given context. In Hamblin semantics accounts,
certain expressions (e.g. indefinites in Kratzer & Shimoyama 2002) denote
sets of alternatives, which then combine with other constituents of the
sentence in a compositional manner. In contrast to this 'one dimensional
system', other alternative-based theories of interpretation assume a
'multidimensional' semantics (Rooth 1985, Krifka 1995, Chierchia 2006):
alongside standard meanings, speakers recursively build up alternative sets
that are accessed by alternative sensitive-operators.

Taken together, these studies raise both theoretical and empirical issues
such as the following:

- How are alternative sets generated? What is the role of grammar and
context in determining alternative sets? Are they located at the lexical level,
as often argued for polarity items or scalar elements? Or rather are they
generated on the basis of the structure in which they occur (Katzir 2007)?
Do we need both mechanisms, with different kinds of alternatives playing a
role in different phenomena?

- What are the kinds of alternatives that are relevant? At what point of the
derivation do speakers consider alternatives and decide whether to exploit
them for meaning enrichment? What are the principles that govern meaning
enrichment that results from consideration of alternatives?

- Can alternatives and alternative-sensitive operators be used to capture
and predict cross-linguistic variation, as argued for instance for polarity-
sensitive items and indeterminate pronouns in Kratzer & Shimoyama (2002),
Chierchia (2006), Alonso-Ovalle & Menéndez-Benito (2009)?

- The attempts in the recent literature to provide a unified account of scalar
implicature effects and focus effects (e.g. Fox & Katzir 2009), by making use
of alternative-sensitive operators akin to only, raise the issue of further
possible extensions. Do the different phenomena that have been treated in
terms of alternatives deserve a unified analysis?

Final Call for Papers

We welcome submissions addressing these issues, both from a theoretical
and an experimental perspective. Abstracts are invited for 30 minute talks,
followed by 15 minutes of discussion. Abstracts must be anonymous, in .pdf
format, and they should not exceed two pages in 12 point font, with margins
of 2.5 cm/1 inch on all sides.

Submission page: http://www.easychair.org/conferences/?
Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue

Page Updated: 04-Jun-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.