* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
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 23.4717

Mon Nov 12 2012

Calls: Typology, Syntax, Semantics, Pragmatics, Psycholinguistics/Croatia

Editor for this issue: Alison Zaharee <alisonlinguistlist.org>

Date: 11-Nov-2012
From: Anna Volkova <sle.reflexivesgmail.com>
Subject: Challenging Reflexive Strategies
E-mail this message to a friend

Full Title: Challenging Reflexive Strategies

Date: 18-Sep-2013 - 21-Sep-2013
Location: Split, Croatia
Contact Person: Anna Volkova, Eric Reuland
Meeting Email: < click here to access email >

Linguistic Field(s): Pragmatics; Psycholinguistics; Semantics; Syntax; Typology

Call Deadline: 13-Nov-2012

Meeting Description:

The canonical binding theory of Chomsky (1981) in the beginning of the 80's generated a wave of cross-linguistic research (both in the generative and in the functional paradigms) that brought to the front a bulk of language facts that were problematic for CBT. The list of potential problems included:

- Non-complementary distribution of anaphors and pronominals
- Optionality of reflexive marking
- Variability in the types of reflexive marking
- Languages without an overt reflexive strategy
- Logophors
- Long-distance binding
- Unified analysis of other uses of reflexive markers

This development in the field also gave a spur to approaches with a functional, semantic and cognitive basis, involving semantic classifications of predicates, prominence or thematic role hierarchies, information status, definiteness etc. The challenge was greatly inspiring for the further development of the theory of anaphora.

Current linguistic theory presents an array of approaches to the analysis of the reflexive strategies: from the pragmatic based approach of Levinson (2000) to typologically oriented works of Haspelmath (2008) and König & Gast (2008) the competition based account of Safir (2004) to LFG accounts (Dalrymple 1993, Bresnan 2000, Asudeh 1998) to HPSG accounts (Pollard & Sag 1994, Kiss 2001) to purely semantic accounts (Schlenker 2005) to accounts inspired by the Minimalist Program (Boeckx, Hornstein, and Nunes 2007, Rooryck & Vanden Wyngaerd 2012, Reuland 2011). The goal of our workshop is to bring together researchers working in different theoretical paradigms, typologists and language specialists to discuss natural language patterns in the reflexivity domain that do not fit theoretical accounts on the market. We would like to encourage a dialogue between linguists working on the same topic from different perspectives and critically assess the state of the field.

The essential goal of the study of the theory of language is to discover the principles that underlie all natural language grammars and to explain the possible breadth and limits of linguistic variation. We believe that the ultimate joy of linguistic research is testing the theoretical predictions against the broad range of existing languages.

Topics include, but are not restricted to, the following:

1. Descriptions of languages whose anaphoric systems are not well-studied (including but not limited to the exclusive use of verbal reflexivizing strategy, doubling of pronoun, repeating of full NPs, etc.)
2. Discussions of less described reflexivity cases that present a problem for the current approaches
3. Contrastive analysis of a set of (less familiar) data in several theoretical accounts
4. Psycholinguistic/language acquisition data (non-)supporting certain theoretical predictions
5. Logophoricity and deictic shift

Possible questions we would like to see addressed include the following (but many more can be envisioned):

a) Are there still language patterns on the market that pose a universal problem for all existing accounts?
b) What are the empirical differences between the accounts on the market? Which ones are particularly good/bad at dealing with certain groups of facts?
с) What is the correct division of labour between syntax, semantics, and pragmatics?

Call for Papers:

We invite abstracts for the workshop 'Challenging Reflexive Strategies' at the 46th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea (September 18-21, 2013) organized by the Italian and English Departments and the Center for Interdisciplinary Research Studia Mediterranea, Split.

This call regards the submission of the short, preliminary versions of the abstracts. Submissions will be evaluated by the workshop organizers (Eric Reuland and Anna Volkova). After that, 13 abstracts will be selected and submitted together with the workshop proposal to the conference organizers on November 15, 2012. Notification of acceptance/rejection will be given to the workshop organizers by December 15, 2012. If the workshop is accepted, the deadline for the submission of the final version of the abstracts will be January 15, 2012.

Submission Details:

- Deadline for submission (preliminary abstracts): November 13, 2012
- Abstracts are no longer than 300 words, including examples (full references should not be included in the abstract)
- Submissions are restricted to one single-authored and one co-authored abstract at most (or two co-authored abstracts)
- The language of the workshop is English: abstracts and talks will be in English
- Abstracts must be single-spaced and fully justified. The standard font will be Calibri, size 10. The margins will be 2,54 top/bottom and 1,91 left/right (Moderate in MS Word).
- File format: *.pdf
- File name: [title.pdf]
- Submission email: sle.reflexivesgmail.com (add 'Abstract Submission SLE 2013' in the subject line).

The general call for papers of the 46th SLE meeting can be found at: http://www.sle2013.eu/call-for-papers.



Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue



Page Updated: 12-Nov-2012

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.