LINGUIST List 24.1090|
Mon Mar 04 2013
Calls: Syntax, Semantics/Netherlands
Editor for this issue: Alison Zaharee
From: Ora Matushansky <o.m.matushanskyuu.nl>
Subject: Secondary Predication in Formal Frameworks
E-mail this message to a friend
Full Title: Secondary Predication in Formal Frameworks
Short Title: SPIFF
Date: 27-May-2013 - 27-May-2013
Location: Utrecht, Netherlands
Contact Person: Lotte Hendriks
Meeting Email: < click here to access email >
Linguistic Field(s): Semantics; Syntax
Call Deadline: 22-Mar-2013
Secondary Predication in Formal Frameworks
May 27, 2013
Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
This symposium dedicated to non-verbal secondary predication, and more specifically to depictives, as in (1), or resultatives, as in (2).
(1) a. I ate lunch naked. (Carrier and Randall 1992: 219)
b. I ate the carrots soft. (Ettlinger 2008: 147)
(2) I painted the car yellow. (Simpson 1983:143)
Questions to be addressed include but are not limited to:
- What is the syntactic structure of secondary predicates? Are they small clauses (Stowell 1980) or extended projections of lexical heads (cf. Williams 1983)? Should depictives and resultatives be treated differently?
- How do secondary predicates combine with main predicates? While depictives are usually assumed to involve control (Chomsky 1981), resultatives are often hypothesized to combine with their subjects directly, with the resulting small clause merged as the complement of the lexical verb (Hoekstra 1988, see also Ramchand 2008). Do the lexical verb and secondary predicate form a syntactic ‘complex predicate’ (Williams 1983, Larson 1988, Cormack and Smith 1999, Neeleman and van de Koot 2002, etc.)? What semantic mechanisms ensure the interpretation of the resulting structures?
- Are there several types of depictives, as argued by Halliday 1967? And should resultatives not be viewed as a single phenomenon (Goldberg and Jackendoff 2004, cf. also Ettlinger 2008)?
- What is the syntax of so-called ‘subject-oriented resultatives’ (Verspoor 1997, Wechsler 1997, Rappaport Hovav and Levin 2001, Wechsler 2005)?
- How do strong resultatives differ from weak (or pseudo-) resultatives (Washio 1997, Levinson 2010)?
- Is there a connection between depictives and appositives, as in (3) vs. (4) (cf. Heringa 2011)?
(3) a. Mary arrived home drunk. (depictive)
b. They dragged John unconscious into the ambulance.
(4) a. Mary arrived home, drunk. (appositive adjective)
b. They dragged John, totally unconscious, into the ambulance.
Casper de Groot (University of Amsterdam)
Beth Levin (Stanford University)
Organizers: Annemarie van Dooren, Lotte Hendriks, Ora Matushansky
Call for Papers:
Abstracts are accepted for oral presentations for the 2013 symposium on secondary predication, which will be held in Utrecht, The Netherlands on May 27, 2013.
We encourage submission in all formal frameworks.
Abstracts must not exceed two A4 pages in length, including data and references, with 2.5 cm (1 inch) margins on all four sides, 12pt font size, single line spacing. Examples should be interleaved with the text.
Properly anonymized abstracts should be submitted in the PDF format via EasyChair, using the following link:
Submission deadline: March 22, 2013
Acceptance notification: April 15, 2013
Presentation length: 30 minutes, excluding 10 minutes of discussion.
Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
Page Updated: 04-Mar-2013
While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed
on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.