LINGUIST List 23.3078|
Mon Jul 16 2012
Editor for this issue: Alison Zaharee
From: Lieven Danckaert <Lieven.DanckaertUGent.be>
Subject: Workshop: Lexical Categories United
E-mail this message to a friend
Full Title: Workshop: Lexical Categories United
Date: 22-Jul-2013 - 27-Jul-2013
Location: Geneva, Switzerland
Contact Person: Lieven Danckaert
Meeting Email: < click here to access email >
Web Site: http://www.cil19.org/en/workshops/lexical-categories-united-parallels-between-extended-projections/
Linguistic Field(s): Syntax
Call Deadline: 01-Oct-2012
Many people have proposed that the functional make-up of nominals and clauses (as extended projections of a lexical verb (Grimshaw 1990, 1991/2005)) is to some extent similar. One of the first explicit proposals along these lines was Szabolcsi's (1983) work on Hungarian noun phrases, where she likens the possessor inside a noun phrase to the sentential subject. Abney (1987) follows her lead and pushes the parallelism between clauses and noun phrases even further by postulating a similar functional structure for both. Subsequently, more evidence was brought forward supporting such a parallel approach, from a typologically diverse range of languages (Alexiadou&Stavrou 1998; Cardinaletti&Starke 1999; Bernstein 2001; Aboh 2004; Koopman 2005; Rijkhoff 2008, among others).
Nominals and clauses are not the only categories that have been compared structurally. Van Riemsdijk (1978), Starke (1995), Koopman (2000) and den Dikken (2003, 2010) postulate a functional layer on top of adpositions, parallel to that postulated for clauses. Stowell (1983) generalizes the subject position across all lexical categories, and Starke (1995) postulates that even small clauses actually are projected to the CP layer. Moreover, Leu (2011) proposes that there is movement in extended projections of nouns and adjectives comparable to V-to-T-to-C movement.
Questions we would like to see addressed include, but are not limited to the following:
1. Given that there is variation in clause types, is there similar variation in nominal, adjectival, adverbial and prepositional domains?
2. Some questions arise regarding the privileged status of clauses (verbal extended projections). For instance, why can only clauses be used on their own? And is there an equivalent to V2 or V-final in subordinate clauses in other categories?
3. Can the cross-categorial parallels be extended to (sub-)morphemic structure (Caha 2009; Starke 2011)?
4. Can all types of nominals be analysed as parallel to clauses? How can we explain differences between deverbal nominals and ordinary nominals, e.g., in the availability of adverbials (*[Kim's version of the event thoroughly] was a big help vs. ?[Kim's explanation of the event thoroughly] was a big help. (Fu, Roeper and Borer 2001))?
5. Voice alternation is possible in the verbal and nominal extended projections (Chomsky 1970). Can similar phenomena be observed in other domains?
6. If the tripartite CP>IP>XP hierarchy is plausible enough for VP/NP, (how) does it extend to PP (Starke 1993; Koopman 2000; Den Dikken 2010) and to AP (Corver 1997)?
7. Can features or functional heads be identified across categories? For instance, is the category 'finiteness' in the extended projection of V to be related in any way to 'definiteness' in the projection of N?
Jane Grimshaw (Rutgers University)
Call for Papers:
There is a broad consensus among syntacticians that lexical categories, like verbs and nouns, are endowed with a certain amount of functional superstructure. Moreover, there is rich empirical evidence suggesting that this functional structure is organized in a systematic and cross-linguistically stable way (Cinque 1999, 2005; Rizzi 1997). In her seminal work, Grimshaw (1991/2005) refers to the totality of the functional projections dominating a lexical category as the 'extended projection' of that particular lexical item. In this workshop, we wish to investigate more closely the phenomenon of extended projections across lexical categories. More specifically, we welcome contributions that address the two following two broad questions:
(i) To what extent are the extended projections of different lexical categories the same?
(ii) Extended projections: if nouns and verbs have them, do adjectives, adverbs and prepositions have them too?
Precisions for Abstract Submission:
Seven talks will be selected from the abstracts submitted through the CIL call for papers. Abstracts should be 500 words long, including examples but excluding references. Please send your abstract before October 1, 2012 to the following email:
Aboh, Enoch. 2004. Topic and focus within D. Linguistics in the Netherlands 2004, 1-12.
Abney, Steven. 1987. The English Noun Phrase in its sentential aspect. PhD diss., MIT.
Alexiadou, Artemis & Melita Stavrou. 1998. (A)symmetries in DPs and clauses: evidence from derived nominals. Linguistic Review 15, 257-276.
Bernstein, Judy. 2001. The DP hypothesis: identifying clausal properties in the nominal domain. In: Baltin, M. & C. Collins (eds.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory. Blackwell: Oxford, 536-561.
Caha, Pavel. 2009. The nanosyntax of case. PhD diss., University of Tromsø.
Cardinaletti, Anna & Michal Starke. 1999. The typology of structural deficiency: a case study of the three grammatical classes. In: van Riemsdijk, H. (ed.), Clitics in the languages of Europe. Mouton de Gruyter: Berlin, 145-233.
Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In: Jacobs, R. & P. Rosenbaum (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Blaisdell: Waltham, MA.
Corver, Norbert. 1997. Much-support as a last resort. Linguistic Inquiry 28. 119-164.
Den Dikken, Marcel. 2003. On the syntax of locative and directional adpositional phrases. Ms. CUNY Graduate Center, New York.
Den Dikken, Marcel. 2010. On the functional structure of locative and directional PPs. In: Cinque, G. & L. Rizzi (eds.), Mapping spatial PPs. Oxford: Oxford U.P., 74-126.
Fu, Jingqi, Thomas Roeper & Hagit Borer. 2001. The VP within process nominals: evidence from adverbs and the VP anaphor do so. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 549-582.
Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument structure. MIT Press: Cambridge (Mass.).
Grimshaw, Jane. 1991/2005. Extended projection. In: Grimshaw, J., Words and structure. CSLI: Stanford (Cal.), 1-73.
Koopman, Hilda. 2000. Prepositions, postpositions, circumpositions, and particles. In: The Syntax of Specifiers and Heads, 204-260. Routledge: London.
Koopman, Hilda. 2005. On the parallelism of DPs and clauses: evidence from Kisongo Maasai. In: Carnie, A., H. Harley & S. A. Dooley (eds.), Verb first: on the syntax of verb-initial languages, Benjamins, Amsterdam, 281-302.
Leu, Thomas. 2011. Generalized x-to-C in Germanic. Ms. Yale University.
Riemsdijk, Henk van. 1978. A case study in syntactic markedness: the binding nature of prepositional phrases. Foris: Dordrecht.
Rijkhoff, Jan. 2008. Synchronic and diachronic evidence for parallels between noun phrases and sentences. In: Josephson, F. & I. Söhrman (eds.), Interdependence of diachronic and synchronic analyses. Benjamins: Amsterdam, 13-42.
Starke, Michal. 1993. Notes on prepositions and clause-structure. MA paper, University of Geneva.
Starke, Michal. 1995. On the format for small clauses. In: Cardinaletti, A. & M.T. Guasti (eds.), Small clauses. Academic Press: New York, 237-269.
Starke, Michal. 2011. Towards an elegant solution to language variation: variation reduces to the size of lexically stored trees. Ms. University of Tromsø (available at http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/001183).
Szabolcsi, Anna. 1983. The possessor that ran away from home. Linguistic Review 3, 89-102.
Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
Page Updated: 16-Jul-2012
While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed
on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.