* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
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 21.3341

Thu Aug 19 2010

Calls: General Ling, Ling Theories/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!
Directory
        1.    Jeroen van Craenenbroeck, BCGL5: Case at the Interfaces

Message 1: BCGL5: Case at the Interfaces
Date: 17-Aug-2010
From: Jeroen van Craenenbroeck <jeroen.vancraenenbroeckhubrussel.be>
Subject: BCGL5: Case at the Interfaces
E-mail this message to a friend

Full Title: BCGL5: Case at the Interfaces

Date: 02-Dec-2010 - 03-Dec-2010
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Contact Person: Jeroen van Craenenbroeck
Meeting Email: bcglcrissp.be
Web Site: http://www.crissp.be/events/bcgl5.html

Linguistic Field(s): General Linguistics; Linguistic Theories

Call Deadline: 05-Sep-2010

Meeting Description:

GIST (Ghent) and CRISSP are proud to present the fifth installment of the
Brussels Conference on Generative Linguistics (BCGL5): Case at the
interfaces, to be held in Brussels on December 2-3, 2010.

We are pleased to announce that the following invited speakers have
agreed to give a talk at BCGL5:David Pesetsky (MIT), Mark Baker (Rutgers
University), and Halldór Sigurðsson (Lund University).

2nd Call For Papers

Theme description

Ever since Vergnaud's famous letter to Chomsky and Lasnik in 1976
(recently published as Vergnaud 2006), C/case has been at the center of
attention of generative theorizing. In the early GB-days, the focus on case
was mostly due to the fact that the Case Filter led to a number of significant
theoretical advances and to a much higher degree of unification (see
Bobaljik & Wurmbrand 2008). In particular, not only did it result in the
abandonment of the non-explanatory, descriptive *NP-to-VP-filter (Chomsky
& Lasnik 1977), it also —in conjunction with Burzio's generalization—made
possible a unified, construction-neutral analysis of passives, unaccusatives
and raising constructions (Burzio 1986), and led to a deeper understanding
of word order differences between nominal and clausal complements
(Stowell 1981). Moreover, the relation between a case-assigning verb and
its accusative object or between a preposition and its complement, termed
government, was soon to become one of the most crucial theoretical
primitives in the then developing framework, its effects extending well
beyond case theory proper.

With the advent of the Minimalist Program came a radical reduction of the
number of theoretical primitives—including the abandonment of government—
as well as a heightened focus on the interaction between the syntactic
module on the one hand and the articulatory-perceptual (A-P) and
conceptual-intentional (C-I) interfaces on the other. Once again, case took
center stage, but this time mainly because it refused to be straightforwardly
assimilated into the new theoretical perspective. On the C-I-side, case
seems to be a feature that is uninterpretable both on the Probe and on the
Goal, and as such it differs from other formal features such as [phi] or [wh].
This has prompted Chomsky (1995ff) to propose that case valuation is a
side effect of the [phi]-Agree-relation between T/v on the one hand and the
subject/object on the other. Bo?kovi? (2005) on the other hand takes the
radical uninterpretability of case to be the driving force behind the word
order alternations traditionally ascribed to the EPP. Others have taken a
different perspective and have argued that case morphology is the spell-out
of syntactic features that have an interpretable counterpart. The precise
identification of these features differs and ranges from Tense (Pesetsky &
Torrego 2001, 2004), to Aspect (Kratzer 2004, Svenonius 2001, 2002,
2006, 2007), to categorial features (Pesetsky 2009).

At the A-P-interface case is the topic of a division-of-labor-debate between
morphology and syntax. Based on Zaenen, Maling and Thráinsson's (1985)
seminal paper on Icelandic, Marantz (1991) concluded that the distribution
of case affixes was determined entirely in a post-syntactic morphological
module, and that the syntactic effects of case might be reducible to
independent, non-case related principles such as the EPP. Marantz's work
has been further developed by among others Bobaljik & Wurmbrand (2008),
Bobaljik (2008), Schütze (1997), McFadden (2004), and Sigurðsson (2006,
2009). At the same time, however, there is a substantial body of work
arguing that case checking/valuation forms part and parcel of syntax proper
(see a.o. Pesetsky 2009, Pesetsky & Torrego 2001, 2004, Bo?kovi? 2005),
while others argue for a more mixed approach (Legate 2008, Baker &
Vinokurova 2008, Caha 2009). For the fifth Brussels Conference on
Generative Linguistics we welcome papers on any topic related to the
issues raised above. In particular, questions that the conference seeks to
address include-but are not limited to-the following:

-Is case a strictly formal licensing mechanism ('the formal feature par
excellence' Chomsky 1995:278-9) or is it connected to semantic content?
-Is structural case the (uninterpretable) manifestation on a DP of features
which are semantically interpretable only on verbal projections?
-How closely connected are (the conditions on) case assignment and the
assignment of theta-roles?
-How closely connected are (the conditions on) case assignment and the
characterization of event structure?
-Do PPs bear case? Is case assignment associated with argument-hood or
DP-hood?
-Which level of the (decomposed) verbal structure is relevant for the
determination of case?
-What is the relation between finiteness and nominative?
-Is genitive case a reflection of an underlying predication structure?
-Is case assigned by one head or is it made available by the combination of
two/several heads?
-Should (inherent and/or structural) case be represented as a head, e.g. a
K-head? Does case morphology project? What is the empirical evidence for
this/these head(s)? What is its/their semantic/syntactic
function/contribution?
-Should structural case and inherent (idiosyncratic/lexical and semantic)
case be distinguished from each other, or can these notions be collapsed?
- Should morphological case be distinguished from syntactic or abstract
case? If so, how should syntactic/abstract case be defined? What is its
relation to overt case manifestations? Does variation in morphological case
endings have syntactic relevance?
- What is the evidence in favor of assuming case features in the syntax? If
such features exist, can/must they be further decomposed into more basic
syntactic features?
-Can dependent/non-dependent case systems exist side by side with
Agree(ment)-based systems or are they mutually exclusive?
-Do we need a notion of default case? If so, how does it come about and
what determines which case is default in which language?

Invited Speakers

We are pleased to announce that the following invited speakers have
agreed to give a talk at BCGL5:

David Pesetsky (MIT)
Mark Baker (Rutgers University)
Halldór Sigurðsson (Lund University)

Abstract Guidelines

Abstracts should not exceed two pages, including data, references and
diagrams. Abstracts should be typed in at least 11-point font, with one-inch
margins (letter-size; 8" ½ by 11" or A4) and a maximum of 50 lines of text
per page. Abstracts must be anonymous and submissions are limited to 2
per author, at least one of which is co-authored.

Only electronic submissions will be accepted. Please submit your abstract
using the EasyAbs link for BCGL5: http://linguistlist.org/confcustom/bcgl5

Important Dates

First call for papers: July 16, 2010
Second call for papers: August 16, 2010
Abstract submission deadline: September 5, 2010
Notification of acceptance: October 15, 2009
Conference: December 2-3, 2010
Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue



Page Updated: 19-Aug-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.