LINGUIST List 19.2321

Tue Jul 22 2008

Calls: Semantics/France; Morphology, Phonology/France

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


        1.    Orin Percus, GLOW 2009 Semantics Workshop
        2.    Orin Percus, GLOW 2009 Phonology Workshop


Message 1: GLOW 2009 Semantics Workshop
Date: 22-Jul-2008
From: Orin Percus <sdl.directionyahoo.fr>
Subject: GLOW 2009 Semantics Workshop
E-mail this message to a friend

Full Title: GLOW 2009 Semantics Workshop

Date: 15-Apr-2009 - 15-Apr-2009 Location: Nantes, France Contact Person: Orin Percus Meeting Email: sdl.directionyahoo.fr Web Site: http://www.lettres.univ-nantes.fr/lling/glow32/

Linguistic Field(s): Semantics

Call Deadline: 01-Nov-2008

Meeting Description:

GLOW 2009 At the University of Nantes Nantes, France

GLOW Workshops April 15 Workshop in Semantics: Modes of Composition

Second Call for Papers

GLOW 2008 Semantics Workshop Hosted jointly by LLING (EA 3827) and the Institut Jean Nicod

April 15, 2009

Theme: Modes of Composition

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 Abstracts may include an extra page for references (not examples), but this third page will not be published in the spring newsletter.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:

If the truth conditions that we associate with syntactic structures are computed compositionally, then how? A variety of composition rules have been motivated that supplement the simple Fregean rule of functional application. Heim and Kratzer 1998 discuss modification and predicate abstraction. Chung and Ladusaw 2004 motivate a rule of ''predicate restriction.'' Other researchers attach importance to function composition, particularly in variable-free approaches, where rules of this kind become central. What is the class of composition rules? What is the status of type-shifting and how many varieties are there? Could the impression that there are modes of composition that go beyond functional application in fact be due to the presence of unpronounced elements in syntactic structure? We invite submissions that address such questions, and in particular submissions that bring new empirical evidence to bear on them.

Sentences contribute more than their truth conditions. Are other aspects of sentence meaning, like their felicity conditions and their expressive content, computed compositionally as well, and if so how? Is it better to assume that the same interpretive procedure is responsible for generating truth-conditional and non-truth-conditional aspects of meaning, or is it better to assume that different processes are involved? The issue of how to compositionally generate non-truth-conditional aspects of meaning received one of its first in-depth treatments in Karttunen and Peters 1979, and has most recently been revived by Potts. We also hope for submissions that make progress on this issue and the questions surrounding it.
Message 2: GLOW 2009 Phonology Workshop
Date: 22-Jul-2008
From: Orin Percus <sdl.directionyahoo.fr>
Subject: GLOW 2009 Phonology Workshop
E-mail this message to a friend


Full Title: GLOW 2009 Phonology Workshop

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

Linguistic Field(s): Morphology; Phonology

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 Phonology: The lexicon (if any)

Second Call for Papers

GLOW 2009 Phonology Workshop April 15, 2009

Theme: The Lexicon (if any).

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:

This workshop addresses issues relating to the necessity (or lack thereof) of a structured lexicon under contemporary approaches to phonology. Research in phonology in recent years has seen a shift towards ''morphophonological'' approaches, in the classical sense of the term. This shift, in turn, has a crucial impact on the architecture of the grammar itself, as conceived under alternative approaches to phonology.

We invite abstracts bearing on the issue of the status and the structure of the lexicon. Questions that that may be addressed include but are not limited to:

- Does a mechanism like GEN in Optimality Theory imply the absence of a lexicon? And if so, how does it generate the representations that are to be evaluated by the grammar?

- Within an exemplar-based framework, what is the nature of lexical representations? What is the nature of the 'exemplars' that are posited? How much 'fine phonetic detail' is stored and how does such a framework specify a prototype? What is the relevant structure of the lexicon that it entails?

- Within connectionist approaches, where structures and lexical representations are viewed as being built 'dynamically', do we still need to talk about a 'structured lexicon', stocking irregularity?

- Traditionally, the lexicon is seen as the repository of exceptions and phonological irregularity. What is the status of phonological irregularity today, or is this notion no longer operational?

- Theoretical models may rely on the manipulation of large-scale corpora, leading to changes in methods of investigation and the hypotheses concerning the architecture of the grammar. How is variation and, in particular, sociolinguistically conditioned (post-lexical?) variation integrated into current models, and what are the consequences for the architecture of the lexicon itself?

- What is the influence of the frequency of occurrence of a given linguistic unit on the nature of representations? What is the impact of such data on alternate conceptions of linguistic mechanisms?

- Within specific theoretical frameworks, what is the status or the form that is taken by lexical representations? Are they structured or not, syllabified or not, linearized or not? Are these structural aspects of representations only surfacing as by-products of unstructured representations?

- How do the lexicon and phonology interface? What kinds of interactions need to be assumed? How does phonology specify the structure of lexical representations? What is the influence of the lexicon on the phonological architecture?

- What is the influence of a strictly morphological component on the relations that might hold between phonology and the lexicon?