LINGUIST List 9.157

Tue Feb 3 1998

Calls: Sound Patterns, Generative Grammar

Editor for this issue: Anita Huang <>

Please do not use abbreviations or acronyms for your conference unless you explain them in your text. Many people outside your area of specialization will not recognize them. Also, if you are posting a second call for the same event, please keep the message short. Thank you for your cooperation.


  1. Marie Helene Casanova, Sound Patterns of Spontaneous Speech

Message 1: Sound Patterns of Spontaneous Speech

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 11:02:59 +0000
From: Marie Helene Casanova <>
Subject: Sound Patterns of Spontaneous Speech

Sound Patterns of Spontaneous Speech : Production and Perception

Aix en Provence, France, 24-25-26 September 1998

The European Speech Communication Association (ESCA) has identified the
area of sound patterns of spontaneous speech as an important area of
current research. An ESCA Workshop is being organised in Aix en Provence
with this focus. Contributions should describe and explain spontaneous
speech processes and their perception at the word, phrase and sentence
level in a wide variety of languages.

Workshop theme :

During the last decades, descriptions of spontaneous speech mainly
focused on the reduction and assimilation of speech segments to adjacent
segment. Reduction and assimilatory processes of spontaneous speech are
the products of gesture economy and physical constraints. They are also
constrained by the phonetic, phonological, and prosodic specificities of
languages and dialects. Therefore, this workshop is aimed at
contributing to the description and the understanding of the production
and perception of spontaneous speech processes in various languages. The
workshop will be centred around the following topics :
- Acoustic and articulatory analysis of spontaneous-speech processes
- Prosodic information and spontaneous-speech processes
- Perception of reduction and assimilatory processes
- Modelling

Format of the workshop :

This will be an international workshop within a limited number of active
participants, i.e. priority will be given to persons with accepted
Each session will be introduced by a tutorial presentation by an invited
expert. Most papers will be presented in plenary sessions with time for
demonstration and discussion. other papers will be presented in poster
sessions followed by plenary discussions.

Workshop site :

SPoSS will take place in a conference centre located in the area of Aix
en Provence in ten minute`s drive from Aix en Provence. Bus
transportation to and from the centre will be provided every day.
Detailed logistic information will be distributed to all registered

Proceedings and languages :

The contributions to the workshop will be published in a Workshop
Proceedings which will be available to participants at the time of the
workshop. As the new French law (loi Toubon) requires, they will include
French abstracts. The official languages of the workshop will be English
and french.

Registration fees :

The fee for the workshop, including proceedings, lunches, bus
tranportation to and from the conference centre and the SPoSS reception
is 1700 FF, with a 300 FF reduction for ESCA members. Students with a
certificate of their status will pay 750 FF with a 100 FF reduction for
ESCA student members. Registration for non-ESCA members includes a
complementary membership for 1998.

Important dates :

March 31, 1998 : Preliminary registration and deadline for submission of
title and abstract.
May 15, 1998 : Notification of acceptance, imstructions for authors,
information on accomodation.
September 1, 1998 : Imperative deadline for early registration and for 4
page camera-ready paper.
September 10, 1998 : Preliminary program e-mailed.
September 24-25-26 : Worshop.

European Speech Communication Association (ESCA) :

ESCA is a non-profit organisation for promoting Speech Communication
Science and Technology in a European context. A limited number of grants
for participation is available. More information is available though :
e-mail :

International Scientific Committee :

Andrew Butcher (Aust)
Olle Engstrand (Sw)
Wolfgang Hess (Ger)
Klaus Kohler (Ger)
Florien Koopmans-Van Beinum (Ned)
Bjorn Lindblom (Sw)
Joaquim Llisterri (Sp)
Francis Nolan (UK)
John Ohala (USA)
Louis Pols (Ned)
Willy Serniclaes (Bel)
Jacqueline Vaissiere (Fr)

Organising committee :

Danielle DUEZ, LPL

Worshop secretariat :

For all correspondence concerning the workshop, please use the following
address :
att. Danielle DUEZ
Laboratoire Parole et langage, CNRS ESA-6057
Universite de provence
29, avenue Robert Shuman
13621 Aix en provence
Phone :+33 04 42 95 36 23
Fax :+33 04 42 59 50 96
e-mail :

Furteher information will only be sent to (preliminary) registerd

Updated information will also be available on :
Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue

Message 2: SLE 31

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 14:11:16 +0100 (MET)
Subject: SLE 31

Call for Papers, SLE 31, St Andrews, Scotland, 26-30 August 1998


The description and analysis of modality is of central
interest to the study of human language. Modality interacts
with many subsystems of syntax and a better understanding of
modality would further our understanding of these subsystems
greatly. The relevant subsystems play a role in the existing
analyses of the epistemic-deontic dichotomy. This has been
attributed to: 

(i) Argument structure (e.g. Ross 1969): epistemic modals are
one-place predicates (corresponding to raising verbs
syntactically), whereas deontic modals are two-place
predicates (corresponding to control verbs syntactically). 

(ii) Insertion position: epistemic modals are generated in I,
deontic modals in V (e.g. Picallo 1990).

(iii) LF position: epistemic modals are in C, deontic modals
in VP (e.g. McDowell 1987).

(iv) Nature of the complement of a modal: a definite verbal
complement with epistemic modals and an indefinite verbal
complement with deontic modals (e.g. Barbiers 1995). 

v) Pragmatics: the dichotomy is contextually determined and
does not correspond to a syntactic difference (Kratzer 1989).

 Many questions still need to be answered before a
sufficiently adequate analysis can be developed. As for
argument structure, it should be asked what evidence we have
that each modal has two different argument structures. If such
evidence exists, are these argument structures represented in
the lexicon, as in theta-theoretic accounts, or only
syntactically? Related questions concern the categorial status
of modals (a special category AUX in English, but main verbs
in German and Dutch), the selectional restrictions they impose
on their complement (semantically uniform, but not
syntactically: only verbal complements in English, no
categorial restrictions in Dutch, verbal and certain
prepositional complements in German and Afrikaans). 

 As for their syntactic position at surface structure or
LF, we need to know more about the (scopal) interaction of
modals with negation. It is clear that there is a tight
connection between modality and negation/affirmation: many
languages have a modal that behaves as an Negative Polarity
Item (English `need', German `brauchen', Dutch `hoeven'). A
related issue is the interaction of modals with focus
particles, especially those that have a negative or
affirmative import, such as English `only' or French `bien'.
It seems that such focus particles can alter the syntactic and
semantic behaviour of modals. The (scopal) interaction of
modals with other quantifiers and modals with question
operators is also in need of a better description and
analysis. It has been claimed that question formation and
epistemic modality exclude each other. Although this does not
seem to hold in general, question formation and epistemic
modality do seem to restrict each other in ways that are
poorly understood. The interaction of modal verbs with modal
adverbials is also relevant for the determination of the
syntactic position of modals, particulary in view of Cinque's
(1997) hypothesis that every sentence contains two modal
projections that must be either filled by a modal adverbial in
the specifier or by a modal verb in the head. 

 Many languages have a construction with `have to' or `be
to' that involves a modal interpretation. Such constructions
do not generally have an epistemic interpretation (but
consider English `He was never to see her again', Dutch `Het
is te verwachten dat...' `It is to be expected that...').
There are a great many cross-linguistic peculiarities on this
point, which are worth exploring. For example, one question is
how this type of construction, lacking a visible modal
element, yields a modal interpretation. 

 There is a more general question concerning modality:
which properties of modals are necessary for modality and
which are accidental? Cross-linguistically, modals often have
a irregular present tense inflection paradigm. It is unclear
whether this is a necessary property of modals and if so, why.
The fact that English modals are auxilaries but modals in
other languages are not is presumably an accidental property,
and so is the fact that English modals lack infinitives and
participles in their paradigm, whereas Dutch modals do have
infinitival and participial forms (except for the verb
`zullen' `will').

 As it seems that the bulk of generative studies of
modality involves Germanic languages, we particularly invite
papers on modality in Romance and Central European languages. 
Organizers: Sjef Barbiers (Leiden), Frits Beukema (Leiden), Olga Tomic (Novi
Sad), Milena Milojevic Sheppard (Ljubljana), Marija Golden (Ljubljana).

Please submit abstract (1 A4 max) to:

Professor Olga Miseska Tomic
Bulevar Avnoja 109/III, stan 16
Beograd YU 11070


Dr Sjef Barbiers
HIL/Department of Dutch Studies
P.N. van Eyckhof 3
Leiden, NL 2300 RA
The Netherlands


Dr Frits Beukema
HIL/Department of English
P.N. van Eyckhof 4
Leiden, NL 2300 RA
The Netherlands

Closing date for submission of abstract: 15 May 1998
Date of acceptance/rejection of abstract: 1 July 1998 
Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue