* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
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 22.2708

Wed Jun 29 2011

Calls: Syntax/Belgium

Editor for this issue: Alison Zaharee <alisonlinguistlist.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.     Adrienn Janosi , Brussels Conference on Generative Linguistics 6

Message 1: Brussels Conference on Generative Linguistics 6
Date: 29-Jun-2011
From: Adrienn Janosi <janosiadyahoo.com>
Subject: Brussels Conference on Generative Linguistics 6
E-mail this message to a friend

Full Title: Brussels Conference on Generative Linguistics 6
Short Title: BCGL6

Date: 19-Dec-2011 - 20-Dec-2011
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Contact Person: Adrienn Janosi
Meeting Email: < click here to access email >
Web Site: http://www.crissp.be/events/bcgl6/cfp.html

Linguistic Field(s): Syntax

Call Deadline: 01-Oct-2011

Meeting Description:

GIST (Ghent) and CRISSP (Brussels) are proud to present the sixth installment of the Brussels Conference on Generative Linguistics (BCGL6). The theme of this year's conference is ‘Configurations of Agreement’. BCGL6 will take place in Brussels (Belgium) from December 19 to December 20, 2011.

Empirically, agreement is the phenomenon whereby a word displays grammatical features (like gender, number, person, and case features) under the influence of another word. Agreement is universally asymmetrical: in subject-verb agreement, the verb displays the person and number features that are inherently present on the subject, and not the other way round. Agreement may take many guises, such as the agreement of a verb or a complementizer with its subject in person and number, the agreement of determiners with the noun in gender and number, the agreement of adjective with the noun in gender and number. Adjectival agreement is sometimes considered to be a separate phenomenon, and accordingly given a different name: concord (e.g. Chomsky 2001:34n; see also Baker 2008:65; see Schoorlemmer 2009 for an approach in terms of Agree). Theoretically, agreement is of interest in that it seems superfluous, and in this respect represents a departure from optimal design meeting the interface conditions. Chomsky (1995) has suggested linking the agreement property with the displacement property, which itself represents another departure from optimal design. In contrast, Chomsky (2001) has argued that displacement (EPP) and agreement are clearly to be distinguished. Various theories on agreement have been proposed in the literature.

Invited Speakers:

Omer Preminger (MIT)
Milan Řezáč (Paris 8/CNRS)
Marjo van Koppen (Utrecht University)

For more information, please check our conference website:


Call for Papers:

Questions on the Operation 'Agree':

- What is the nature of the asymmetry between probe and goal? Does the probe always have to c-command the goal, or can a goal also c-command its probe (as argued in e.g. Neeleman & Van de Koot 2002, Adger 2003, Von Stechow 2005, Zeijlstra 2008, Baker 2008, Hicks 2009)?
- What are the features involved in the Agree operation?
- What is the precise relationship between (un)interpretability and (un)valuedness of features in the Agree operation?
- What criteria can be adduced to determine whether a feature is (un)interpretable?
- Can only heads function as probes, or can phrases probe too (as argued in Rooryck & Vanden Wyngaerd 2011)?
- What is the exact nature of the locality constraint on Agree? Can it be derived from independent principles?
- In what way is the operation Agree linked to movement, if at all?
- Is concord a phenomenon distinct from agreement, and if so, how? What mechanisms underlie concord?
- Can Agree explain the morphological patterns of agreement that we find, or are additional assumptions about the morphology necessary? If so, how?
- Can Agree be applied to participle agreement; and how?
- Can Agree account for cases of Long-Distance Agreement (LDA) or cases of agreement with DPs bearing inherent case, and how?
- Can Agree account for definiteness agreement of the verb with its object, such as it is found in languages like Hungarian, and how?
- Is agreement enforced through (un/interpretable) features that need to be eliminated to obtain a well-formed representation, or does it work differently?
- Which phenomena involve (Single) Agree(ment) and Multiple Agree(ment) (for the latter, cf. Anagnostopoulou 2005, Béjar & Rezac 2003; Hiraiwa 2001, 2004) and what are the restrictions on these operations?

More General Questions on Agreement:

- Does agreement apply in narrow-syntax or in the morphological component of thegrammar?
- Can Bobaljik's theory of m-agreement be extended to other types of agreement than subject-verb agreement, such as participial agreement, complementizer agreement, adjectival agreement, etc.?
- Is agreement fallible and what does this mean for its status in the grammar?
- How do default agreement and omnivorous agreement fit into the picture?
- How can complementizer agreement be accounted for?
- How can agreement asymmetries be accounted for?
- How (if at all) does the morphological richness of agreement endings interact with syntactic phenomena such as verb movement or pro-drop?
- Can macrovariation (i.e. variation between historically unrelated languages) in subject-verb agreement be traced back to the same underlying parameters as microvariation (i.e. variation between closely related languages or dialects)?
- What are the diachronic aspects of agreement? To what extent can parameters be reset over time?
- Can phi-agreement and movement operations such as wh-movement, object shift, A-movement to subject position, etc., be linked, and how?
- How are agreement and clitic-doubling related and (how) should they be distinguished?
- How should the Person Case Constraint be accounted for?
- Why do verbs agree with subjects in person and number (and sometimes also in gender), and adjectives only in number and gender, never in person?

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 BCGL6:


Important Dates:

First call for papers: June 30, 2011
Second call for papers: August 30, 2011
Abstract submission deadline: October 1, 2011
Notification of acceptance: November 15, 2011
Conference: December 19-20, 2011

For more information and the complete call for papers, please check our conference website:


Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue

Page Updated: 29-Jun-2011

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.