LINGUIST List 23.3378|
Sun Aug 12 2012
Calls: Syntax, Semantics/Germany
Editor for this issue: Alison Zaharee
From: Berit Gehrke <berit.gehrkeupf.edu>
Subject: DGfS Workshop: The Syntax and Semantics of Pseudo-Incorporation
E-mail this message to a friend
Full Title: DGfS Workshop: The Syntax and Semantics of Pseudo-Incorporation
Date: 12-Mar-2013 - 15-Mar-2013
Location: Potsdam, Germany
Contact Person: Olga Borik, Berit Gehrke
Meeting Email: < click here to access email >
Web Site: http://parles.upf.edu/llocs/bgehrke/pseudoincorporation2013/
Linguistic Field(s): Semantics; Syntax
Call Deadline: 17-Aug-2012
In recent years, a number of works have been dedicated to the phenomenon of pseudo-incorporation in various languages, such as Niuean, Hindi, Hungarian, Spanish, Catalan (Massam 2001, Farkas & de Swart 2003, Espinal & McNally 2011, Dayal 2011). Pseudo-incorporation involves the use of a bare noun in internal argument position, which shares some semantic properties with syntactically incorporated nouns (e.g. German radfahren 'ride a bike'), such as obligatory narrow scope, inability to introduce discourse referents, or number neutrality. On the other hand, pseudo-incorporated nouns have more syntactic freedom than syntactically incorporated ones (cf. Mithun 1984, Baker 1988, van Geenhoven 1998, Chung & Ladusaw 2003): strict adjacency to the verb is not (always) required, the noun can be marked for case, the verb can show agreement with the noun, certain types of modification may be allowed.
The aim of this workshop is to bring together research on the semantics and syntax of pseudo-incorporation. Particular topics to be addressed include but are not limited to the following: Which lexical restrictions apply to nouns and verbs that participate in pseudo-incorporation? Do these restrictions hold cross-linguistically? Can we make more precise the intuition that pseudo-incorporation involves reference to some institutionalized activity? Can only nouns in internal argument position be the target of pseudo-incorporation (as is commonly assumed) or do we also find this phenomenon in other argument positions, for example with PP arguments (e.g. go beach; cf. Gehrke & Lekakou 2012)? Is number neutrality a defining feature of pseudo-incorporation or should it rather be explained on the basis of the aspectual properties of predicates involved (Dayal 2011)? Should pseudo-incorporated nouns be analyzed as predicate modifiers or as uninstantiated arguments? The nouns that take part in pseudo-incorporation share defining properties with weak definites (cf. Carlson et al. 2006), which have been analyzed as kind terms by Aguilar-Guevara & Zwarts (2011); are pseudo-incorporated nouns and weak definites just two ways to express the same semantic relation, or are there fundamental differences between the two?
Veneeta Dayal (Rutgers)
Henriëtte de Swart (Utrecht)
Final Call for Papers:
We invite abstracts for 30 minutes presentations (25/20-minute talk plus 5/10 minutes for discussion) that address any of the topics above or related questions. Abstracts should be anonymous and not exceed 2 pages (A4 or US Letter), including examples and references, using a 12pt font with 2.5 cm (1 inch) margins on all four sides. Please send your abstracts electronically in pdf- or doc-format by August 17, 2012 to:
and include your name, affiliation and the title of the abstract in the body of the email.
August 17, 2012: Extended deadline for abstract submission
September 20, 2012: Notification of acceptance
March 12-15, 2013: Workshop
Olga Borik, Veneeta Dayal, Carmen Dobrovie-Sorin, M. Teresa Espinal, Donka Farkas, Berit Gehrke, Marika Lekakou, Louise McNally, Henriëtte de Swart, Joost Zwarts
Olga Borik (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona)
Berit Gehrke (Universitat Pompeu Fabra)
Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
Page Updated: 12-Aug-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.