LINGUIST List 21.598|
Fri Feb 05 2010
Calls: Computational Ling, Discipline of Ling, General Ling/Germany
Editor for this issue: Kate Wu
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!
Empirical, Theoretical and Computational Approaches to Countability in Natural Language
Message 1: Empirical, Theoretical and Computational Approaches to Countability in Natural Language
From: Jan Strunk <strunklinguistics.rub.de>
Subject: Empirical, Theoretical and Computational Approaches to Countability in Natural Language
E-mail this message to a friend
Full Title: Empirical, Theoretical and Computational Approaches to Countability
in Natural Language
Date: 22-Sep-2010 - 24-Sep-2010
Location: Bochum, Germany
Contact Person: Tibor Kiss
Meeting Email: countability2010linguistics.rub.de
Linguistic Field(s): Computational Linguistics; Discipline of Linguistics;
General Linguistics; Historical Linguistics
Call Deadline: 31-May-2010
Empirical, Theoretical and Computational Approaches to Countability in Natural
A conference organized by the Linguistics Department (Sprachwissenschaftliches
Institut) of Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Germany.
Ruhr-Universität Bochum, September 22-24, 2010
Call for Papers
Aims and scope:
The distinction between mass and count nouns has been addressed in a variety of
linguistic (and also extra-linguistic) approaches. Initially, it has been
suggested that the distinction is a property of lexemes, or that it can be
derived from properties of the objects denoted by the respective nouns. This
assumption has been severely challenged by a variety of approaches, leading to
the assumption that countability is a property of constructions and phrases.
Yet, a critical survey of the most advanced work on the count-mass distinction
has shown that
multiple, partially conflicting views on this phenomenon are still competing.
As an illustration for unsettled questions, consider the following:
- If the mass-count distinction is actually dependent on formal syntactic
and/or semantic marking, how are nouns to be classified that lack such a
marking, e.g. nouns in preposition-noun combinations (determinerless PPs)?
- If mass is taken to be a basic property of nouns to which syntactic marking
must be added to transform the noun into a count noun, why do certain languages
already require such marking for mass terms (e.g. Romance languages)?
- How can the apparent tension between theoretical constructional (i.e.
token-based, and hence construction-specific) and computational (i.e.
primarily type-based, and hence possibly lexical class based) classification be
The goal of this conference is to bring researchers from all areas of
linguistics together to clarify the numerous existing theories concerning the
count-mass distinction and also to offer a platform for new insights and
We therefore invite original contributions which relate to the following issues
within or around the count-mass distinction:
- Cross-linguistic empirical and/or theoretical analysis of the count-mass
- Empirical and/or theoretical analysis of countability in a specific natural
- Psycholinguistic experiments
- Manual or computer-aided classification/annotation of countability
- Historical/etymological contributions
- Hagit Borer (University of Southern California, Los Angeles)
- Henriette de Swart (OTS, Universiteit Utrecht)
Abstracts no longer than six pages should be sent to
not later than May 31, 2010.
On behalf of the conference organizers
Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Germany
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.