* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
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 21.5155

Sun Dec 19 2010

Calls: Phonology/Spain

Editor for this issue: Amy Brunett <brunettlinguistlist.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.     Emilie Caratini , Representations in Phonology: Hierarchical vs. Linear Models

Message 1: Representations in Phonology: Hierarchical vs. Linear Models
Date: 17-Dec-2010
From: Emilie Caratini <Emilie.Caratiniunice.fr>
Subject: Representations in Phonology: Hierarchical vs. Linear Models
E-mail this message to a friend

Full Title: Representations in Phonology: Hierarchical vs. Linear Models

Date: 08-Sep-2011 - 11-Sep-2011
Location: Logroño (La Rioja), Spain
Contact Person: Emilie Caratini
Meeting Email: < click here to access email >
Web Site: http://sle2011.cilap.es/

Linguistic Field(s): Phonology

Call Deadline: 18-Dec-2010

Meeting Description:

Representations in Phonology: Hierarchical vs. Linear Models

Issue. Prosodic structure, prosodic representations and prosodic relations in phonology are far from consensual. There is no agreement regarding which different prosodic units should be assumed in phonological theory or how such units should be organised in the prosodic hierarchy. The prosodic tree argued for in Nespor & Vogel (2007 (1986)) may be the most widespread one, yet it certainly does not find unanimous support in the literature – not even concerning its lowest tiers (i.e. mora, syllable, foot, prosodic word). Whereas the existence of these units is acknowledged in a number of approaches (e.g. certain versions of Optimality Theory, cf. Downing 2006, van Oostendorp 2002, Prince & Smolensky 2002 (1993) among others), there is a variety of frameworks that dispense with some of these constituents – or even with all of them – (e.g. Kaye et al. 1990, Kaye 1990, Lowenstamm 1996, Scheer 2004, Neeleman & van de Koot 2006, Samuels 2009). The more hierarchical structure is dismissed from phonological representations, the more lateral relations come into play.

Hierarchical models. Among the defendants of a hierarchical prosodic structure, we find different concepts that are largely incompatible with each other. Consider the notion of the syllable as an example. Despite the enormous amount of literature that has been published on the subject over the years (as was already noted by Pulgram 1970), there is no solid agreement regarding the internal organization of the syllable. Whereas early views on the subject assumed a direct relation between segments and the syllable along the lines sonority principles (see e.g. Whitney 1874), more recent developments added structural units below the syllable (cf. Cairns & Feinstein 1982).

We find approaches that postulate subsyllabic constituents such as rhymes, onsets, nuclei, codas – or a subset thereof – and make use of timing units (x-slots – cf. Cairns & Feinstein 1982 – or Cs and Vs – cf. Clements & Keyser 1983). The skeleton (i.e. x- or C/V-tier) can thus be seen as a timing tier, i.e. as the tier where phonological linearity is achieved.

Moras are regarded as units that determine syllable weight. Moraic theory has been proposed as a concept replacing skeletal positions and subsyllabic constituency (e.g. Hyman 1985). It has been claimed to have advantages in relation to processes as for instance compensatory lengthening (e.g. Hayes 1989) or the representation of geminates (e.g. Davis 1994). On the other hand, skeletal positions and/or subsyllabic constituents are able to do the job as well (van Oostendorp 1995, Kaye et al. 1990...).

Linear models. Next to these competing hierarchical approaches, a rising number of alternative theories reduce prosodic hierarchy to a minimum. In frameworks like Government Phonology (cf. Kaye & Pöchtrager 2009...), the existence of prosodic units like moras, syllables, and feet is dismissed. That is, instead of a strict hierarchical order, linearity is assumed. The effects of prosodic structure on the phonological string are achieved by other means: for instance, Strict-CV Phonology (Lowenstamm 1996, Scheer 2004) replaces hierarchical structures by postulating lateral relations (government and licensing), These relations regulate, among other things, the occurrence of long and short vowels (e.g. when these are distributed as a function of syllable structure) and vowel-zero alternations. The absence of hierarchical structure does not prevent Strict-CV to account for the different stress patterns found across languages (cf. Scheer & Szigetvári 2005).



Call for Papers:

Goals. This workshop aims at confronting the existing approaches to (low-level) prosodic representations and to their effects on the phonological string. We thus welcome contributions couched in any theoretical framework which address topics related to low-level prosodic representations and prosodic relations.

We are pleased to announce the workshop on 'Representations in Phonology: Hierarchical vs. Linear Models' that will take place in Logroño (Spain) during the 44th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea [SLE44], 8th- 11th September 2011 (http://sle2011.cilap.es/).

We invite abstracts from any theoretical framework for oral presentations (20' talk + 10' questions) related to the problem of representations in phonology.

Abstracts will be reviewed anonymously by three referees. Thus, names, addresses and affiliations of their author(s) should appear neither on the abstract itself nor in the abstract's properties. Abstracts should be uploaded as an attachment on the SLE44 submission page (http://wwwling.arts.kuleuven.be/conference/admin/SubmitAbstractSLE). They should contain between 300 and 500 words (exclusive of references). They are preferably in .doc or .rtf format; if your abstract contains special symbols, please include a .pdf version as well.

Participants will be allowed to present only one single-authored paper at SLE44. Additionally, they will be able to present one co-authored paper (as long as they are NOT its first author) or to be a discussant during our workshop. Two co-authored papers are allowed as well (only one as first author). Note that, when submitting your abstract, you will have to choose between 'Oral presentation in general session', 'Oral presentation in workshop', 'Poster presentation' and 'No preference' for your paper. In order to participate in the workshop on representations in phonology, please select the second option ('Oral presentation in workshop'), and do not forget to enter the title of the workshop ('Representations in Phonology: Hierarchical vs. Linear Approaches') in the 'Title of the paper' field, just after the title of your paper.

Emilie Caratini & Björn Köhnlein
Workshop convenors

Important Information:

Deadline for submission: 15th January 2011
Notification of acceptance: 31st March 2011
Conference website: http://sle2011.cilap.es/

Submission website:

http://wwwling.arts.kuleuven.be/conference/admin/SubmitAbstractSLE

Venue: Universidad de la Rioja, Logroño (Spain)
Conference: 8th-11th September 2011
Contact (workshop only): Emilie.Caratiniunice.fr



Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue



Page Updated: 19-Dec-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.