LINGUIST List 19.2320

Tue Jul 22 2008

Calls: Syntax,Morphology,Phonology,Semantics,Pragmatics/France;Lang Acq/France

Editor for this issue: F. Okki Kurniawan <okkilinguistlist.org>


        1.    Orin Percus, The 32nd GLOW Colloquium
        2.    Orin Percus, GLOW 2009 Acquisition Workshop


Message 1: The 32nd GLOW Colloquium
Date: 22-Jul-2008
From: Orin Percus <sdl.directionyahoo.fr>
Subject: The 32nd GLOW Colloquium
E-mail this message to a friend

Full Title: The 32nd GLOW Colloquium Short Title: GLOW 2009

Date: 16-Apr-2009 - 18-Apr-2009 Location: Nantes, France Contact Person: Hamida Demirdache Meeting Email: hamida.demirdacheuniv-nantes.fr Web Site: http://www.lettres.univ-nantes.fr/lling/glow32/

Linguistic Field(s): Applied Linguistics; Morphology; Phonology; Semantics; Syntax

Call Deadline: 01-Nov-2008

Meeting Description:

GLOW 2009 The 32nd GLOW Colloquium April 16-18, 2009 At the University of Nantes Laboratoire de Linguistique de Nantes LLING EA 3827 Nantes, France

Deadline for two-page abstracts: November 1, 2008

Theme, Main Session: On the Architecture of the Grammar: Y, if and how

Second Call for Papers

Invited speakers: Danny Fox, MIT Paul Smolensky, John Hopkins University

Deadline for submissions: November 1, 2008.

Abstracts are invited for a 45-minute presentation (excluding discussion) on the theme below. Abstracts should be submitted online, in PDF format, without the name of the author(s).

Submission details (Further details for submission will be available soon): Abstracts may not exceed two pages of text with at least a one-inch margin on all four sides (measured on A4 paper) and must employ a font not smaller than 12 point. Each page may include a maximum of 50 lines of text, including examples. Examples should not be collected on a separate page. Abstracts may include an extra page for references (not examples), but this third page will not be published in the spring newsletter. Submitters whose computers are not envisioning A4 paper should adjust their margin sizes in order to achieve a text box similar to that on A4 with 1'' margins (e.g. those using the American 81/2'' x 11'' size should use wider left and right margins (1.13'' or 2.85 cm), and may use smaller top and bottom margins (0.6'' or 1.5 cm)). This is especially important for the printing of the spring GLOW newsletter.

You may submit one single-authored and one co-authored abstract, or two co-authored abstracts but not with the same co-authors. You may not submit the same abstract to the Colloquium and to one of the GLOW workshops. Authors whose abstracts are shortlisted but not selected will have the opportunity to present their paper as a poster.

Description:

Accounting for the link between sound and meaning means, among other things, describing how the articulatory-perceptual system works, describing how the system responsible for informational content works, and describing how the two manage to interact. The Y model is one model of the interaction. The classical Y model assumes the presence of a ''syntactic'' component that is the sole locus of recursive structure generation, and two distinct interpretive components between which syntax is the sole connecting link. Many fundamental architectural issues emerge in comparing the Y model with its alternatives.

1. What is the precise articulation of the Y model? For instance, at how many points should we imagine that the external systems are able to access ''syntactic'' information? The question arises, in particular, in light of current variants of the Y model -- e.g. multiple spell out, continuous access to PF and LF, single cycle grammar. What are the empirical and conceptual arguments against/for the classic Y model, and against/for its competitors today? When it comes to accounting for facts in terms of what is happening on a given branch, how much should be attributed to the ''syntactic'' portion of the branch and how much to the operation of the interpretive system? For example, in explaining how sentences with quantifiers receive their interpretation, one could posit that there is QR in the syntax, or that the interpretive system itself adjusts the structure or arrives at the interpretation via type shifting. Similar questions arise in cases where there is an apparent mismatch between syntactic constituents and prosodic constituents (Nespor and Vogel 1986, Truckenbrodt 1999, 2007). Does that readjustment take place on the syntax side or within the phonology? Likewise, in the domain of morphology, how much of word formation is accomplished in the ''syntax'' proper and how much is accomplished by other components?

2. The architecture of the interacting systems that the Y model supposes. Is syntax -- as opposed to the mechanisms that give us phonological and semantic representations -- the only mechanism that operates recursively? What evidence could bear on this issue? What are the consequences, for example for theories of word formation, word meaning and the lexicon? Should the scope of syntax extend into the traditional lexicon / morphology domain, to account for recursive aspects of word meaning and formation (e.g. Marantz 1997, Harley & Noyer 1998, Alexiadou 2001, Hale & Keyser 2002, Borer 2005, Ramchand 2008)? If morphology is in the syntax, how can its distinctive character be derived (e.g., through to the insertion of morphophonological information into syntax, trading hierarchical structure for adjacency, Embick and Noyer 2001)? The same questions arise for other domains. For instance, it has been proposed that phonological words and phonological phrases (but not, for instance syllables or words), can have recursive structure (Selkirk 1995, Gussenhoven 2005). It may be no coincidence that the word and the phrase interface with the syntactic structure most directly. If on the other hand there are different recursive components to language, in what respects do they resemble each other, in what respects do they differ, and why (Jackendoff 2002, Ackema and Neeleman 2007)?

3. Syntax and the interpretive systems Within the Y model, the syntax feeds the systems of interpretation and realization. To what extent can syntax be seen as ''subservient'' to the external systems? To what extent is it the case that syntactic computation is motivated by the need to satisfy input conditions of the interfacing systems? On one extreme version of the position that syntax is ''subservient'' to the interpretive systems, the syntax produces all and only interpretable structures -- there is a perfect match. What consequences would this have for our view of syntax? What evidence could bear on whether it is correct? To what extent can the syntax access information of the kind that the external systems provide? For instance, on the PF side, syntax has been argued to be sensitive to phonological content (Holmberg 2000, Chomsky 2001), linearization (Fox and Pesestsky, Moro 2000, Uriagereka 1999), prosody (Krifka 1998, Szendroi 2001, Jackendoff 2002), or morphological diacritics (Embick 2000). On the LF side, syntax has been argued to be sensitive to the meanings contributed by logical terms (Fox 2000). What aspects of meaning, if any, influence syntactic movement? Is there a limited look-ahead that allows syntax to be driven by effects on the output? What is evidence for the autonomy of syntax? What syntactic operations can be seen as readjustment processes to meet interface conditions that would otherwise be violated (be it on the PF or LF side)? Similar questions can be asked internal to the modules themselves if the systems on the PF side comprise a morphological subsystem and a phonological subsystem, are they informationally encapsulated or do they ''talk'' to each other (Scheer 2008)?

4. How do alternative models compare with the Y model (for example, Jackendoff's 2002 parallel architecture with multiple generative components)? Is the role of phonology and semantics purely interpretive? Can phonology and semantics interact in a way that is not mediated by syntax? In particular, what is the best account for the correlation between phonological phenomena such as intonation or destressing and aspects of semantic interpretation (Gussenhoven 2008, Szendroi 2005, Reinhart 2006)? In models that assume interaction between the interpretive components outside syntax, what kinds of interaction need to be assumed? What is the (strongest) evidence that the syntax feeds the external systems? Many of the analyses mentioned in (3) crucially make reference to how the interpretive systems would treat a particular structure that the syntax creates. Can the same facts be accounted for naturally by other approaches?

Selected references Ackema, P, Neeleman, A. 2007. Morphology Syntax. In The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, ed. G. Ramchand and C. Reiss. OUP. Alexiadou, A. 2001. Functional structure in nominals: nominalization and ergativity. John Benjamins. Borer, H. 2005. Structuring sense. OUP Chomsky, N. 2000. New horizons in the study of language and mind. MIT Press. Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. M. Kenstowicz. MIT Press. Embick, D, Noyer, R. 2001. Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32. Embick, D. 2000. Features, syntax, and categories in the Latin perfect. Linguistic Inquiry 31. Embick, D., Marantz, A. 2008. Architecture and blocking. Linguistic Inquiry 39. Gussenhoven, C. 2005. Procliticized phonological phrases in English: Evidence from rhythm. Studia Linguistica 59. Gussenhoven, C. 2008. Semantic judgments as evidence for the intonational structure of Dutch. Prosody 2008. In Prosodic Phonology, ed. M. Nespor and I. Vogel. Foris: Dordrecht. Fox, D. 2000. Economy and semantic interpretation. MIT Press. Fox, D. Nissenbaum, J. 1999. Extraposition and Scope: A case for overt QR. In Proceedings of WCCFL 18. Fox, D. Pestsky, D. Cyclic Linearization and the typology of movement, ms., MIT. Hale, K. & Keyser, J. 2002. Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure. MIT Press. Harley, H. and R. Noyer 1998. Mixed nominalizations, object shift and short verb movement in English. In Proceedings of NELS 28. Holmberg, A. 2000. Scandinavian stylistic fronting. Linguistic Inquiry 31. Jackendoff, R. 2002. Foundations of language. OUP. Krifka, M. 1998. Scope-inversion under the rise-fall contour in German. Linguistic Inquiry 29. Marantz, A. 1997. No Escape from Syntax: Don't try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium: Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 4, Dimitriadis, A. et al. (eds.), p. 201-225. Moro, A. 2000. Dynamic antisymmetry. MIT Press. Pinker, S., Jackendoff, R. 2005. The faculty of language: What's special about it? Cognition 95. Pustejovsky, J. 1995. The generative lexicon. MIT Press Ramchand, G. 2008. Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first phase syntax. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics. Reinhart, T. 2006. Interface strategies. MIT Press. Roeper, T. 2004. Nominalization: how a nominal construction reveals primary principles. In Handbook of Morphology, ed. R. Lieber and P. Stekauer. Kluwer. Scheer, T. 2008. A lateral theory of phonology. Part II. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. Selkirk, E. O. 1995. The prosodic structure of function words. In University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18: Papers on Optimality Theory, ed. J. Beckman, L. Walsh Dickey and S. Urbanczyk. University of Massachusetts. Amherst: Graduate Linguistic Student Association. Szendroi, K. 2005. Focus movement (with special reference to Hungarian). In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Vol. II, Case 26. Truckenbrodt, H. 1999. On the relation between syntactic phrases and phonological phrases. Linguistic Inquiry 30. Truckenbrodt, H. 2007. The syntax-phonology interface. In The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology, ed. Paul de Lacy. Cambridge: CUP. Uriagereka, J. 1999. Multiple spell-out. In Working minimalism, ed. S. D. Epstein and N. Hornstein. MIT Press.
Message 2: GLOW 2009 Acquisition Workshop
Date: 22-Jul-2008
From: Orin Percus <sdl.directionyahoo.fr>
Subject: GLOW 2009 Acquisition Workshop E-mail this message to a friend


Full Title: GLOW 2009 Acquisition Workshop

Date: 15-Apr-2009 - 15-Apr-2009 Location: Nantes, France Contact Person: Hamida Demirdache Meeting Email: hamida.demirdacheuniv-nantes.fr Web Site: http://www.lettres.univ-nantes.fr/lling/glow32/

Linguistic Field(s): Language Acquisition; Morphology; Semantics; Pragmatics; Syntax

Call Deadline: 01-Nov-2008

Meeting Description:

GLOW 2009 At the University of Nantes Laboratoire de Linguistique de Nantes LLING EA 3827 Nantes, France

GLOW Workshops April 15 Workshop in Language Acquisition: Acquisition at the Syntax-Semantics Interface

Second Call for Papers

GLOW 2009 Acquisition Workshop

April 15, 2009

Theme: Acquisition at the Syntax Semantics Interface

Invited speaker: Colin Philips, University of Maryland

Deadline for submissions: November 1, 2008.

Abstracts are invited for a 45-minute presentation (excluding discussion) on the theme below. Abstracts should be submitted online, in PDF format, without the name of the author(s).

Submission details (further details for submission will be available soon):

Abstracts may not exceed two pages of text with at least a one-inch margin on all four sides (measured on A4 paper) and must employ a font not smaller than 12 point. Each page may include a maximum of 50 lines of text, including examples. Examples should not be collected on a separate page. Abstracts may include an extra page for references (not examples), but this third page will not be published in the spring newsletter. Submitters whose computers are not envisioning A4 paper should adjust their margin sizes in order to achieve a text box similar to that on A4 with 1'' margins (e.g. those using the American 81/2'' x 11'' size should use wider left and right margins (1.13'' or2.85 cm), and may use smaller top and bottom margins (0.6'' or 1.5 cm)). This is especially important for the printing of the spring GLOW newsletter.

You may submit one single-authored and one co-authored abstract, or two co-authored abstracts but not with the same co-authors. You may not submit the same abstract to the Colloquium and to one of the GLOW workshops. Authors whose abstracts are shortlisted but not selected will have the opportunity to present their paper as a poster.

Description:

The purpose of this workshop is to explore the issues that arise at the interface between syntax, semantics and pragmatics in language acquisition.

We are interested in acquisition research in any area at this interface -- e.g. the syntax-semantics of quantification, quantifier scope interactions, negation and its interaction with polarity items or modality, questions, subordination, the syntactic/semantic/pragmatic constraints governing anaphora (bound anaphora vs. coreference), the morpho-syntax of noun phrases and their use and interpretation, the morpho-syntax and the semantics of tense and aspect.

We welcome, in particular, submissions bringing empirical evidence to bear directly on issues concerning the acquisition of syntax-semantics interface conditioned properties, how we should think of the syntax-LF mapping and, more generally, the syntax-semantics mapping in the course of language development, or the theoretical, and methodological issues that the study of acquisition at this interface raises.