LINGUIST List 24.113|
Wed Jan 09 2013
Editor for this issue: Alison Zaharee
From: Roberta D'Alessandro <r.dalessandrohum.leidenuniv.nl>
Subject: Little v
E-mail this message to a friend
Full Title: Little v
Short Title: v
Date: 25-Oct-2013 - 26-Oct-2013
Location: Leiden, Netherlands
Contact Person: Roberta D'Alessandro
Meeting Email: < click here to access email >
Linguistic Field(s): Syntax
Call Deadline: 15-Jun-2013
LUCL, Leiden, 25-26 October 2013
Lisa Cheng, Roberta D’Alessandro, Irene Franco, Laura Migliori and Giuseppe Torcolacci
Little v (or simply v) is one of the most discussed heads in the history of syntax. Since Larson’s (1988) analysis of ditransitive verbs involving a layered V, the idea of an extra head in the V domain, in addition to V, has taken many different forms. The v head was first proposed by Chomsky (1995), following an idea by Kratzer (1996) on (v-)Voice as the head whose specifier hosts the external argument of a verb. For transitive verbs, v was taken to be the locus of Burzio’s generalization. From this definition, it follows that v needs not be present in unaccusatives and it can be in unergatives, if they are analyzed following Hale & Keyser (1993) et seq.
Soon after, within Distributed Morphology, v was assumed to be a ‘verbalizer’, i.e. the head that transforms a root into a verb. Both Harley (1995) and Marantz (1997) maintain that, given this formulation, v must be present in unaccusatives and unergatives as well as in transitives.
As for passives, while the Baker, Johnson & Roberts’s (1989) GB analysis of passives was pretty much accepted by everyone, the introduction of a Numeration and of a derivational syntax made the relation between passive and active transitives blur. Passives were either assumed not to feature a v, or to feature a defective one (Chomsky 1995 ff.), or to be derived through the presence of a (dedicated) Voice head (Kratzer 1996, Marantz 2001, Arad 2003) by virtue of merging an argument in this head alone or by accompanying merge with some sort of operation (e.g. Collins 2005’s smuggling).
Along another line, v has been thought of as encoding all sorts of inner aspectual/Aktionsart information (Folli & Harley 2004 et seq., Ramchand 2008). Lastly, v has been analysed as the locus of anticausative constructions, middles, and impersonals (Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou 2004 et seq., Schäfer 2007 et seq., Alexiadou, Anagnostopoulou & Schäfer 2006 et seq., D’Alessandro 2004), and as being involved in the creation of ergativity patterns (Bittner & Hale 1986, Paul & Travis 2003, Aldridge 2004).
A lot of debate has followed since these first formulations, and many different roles have been attributed to v. This workshop aims at surveying all uses of v, and at finding a common denominator between them.
Call for Papers:
Papers are invited addressing the following questions:
1. What is v?
2. Is there one or are there many v's?
3. Is v the head where passive is encoded?
4. Are v and Voice the same or different heads? / What is the relationship between them?
5. Is v in transitives the same as v in unergatives and unaccusatives? If not, what are the differences?
6. Is there a special v for impersonal passives, middles, anticausatives?
7. What is the relationship between v and argumental agreement, if any?
8. Can we derive idiosyncratic meaning from v?
9. What is the phasehood of v?
Abstracts are invited for 30-minute talks (plus 10 minutes for discussion). There will also be a poster session.
Abstracts submission deadline: 15 June 2013
Speakers will be notified of the results of their abstract review by 31 July.
Abstracts should be anonymous and are not to exceed two pages in length (including examples and references), 12-point type. Submissions are limited to 1 individual and 1 joint abstract per author, or 2 joint abstracts per author.
Authors are asked to submit their abstracts via Easy Abstracts (http://linguistlist.org/easyabs/v).
Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
Page Updated: 09-Jan-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.