LINGUIST List 22.4583

Wed Nov 16 2011

Calls: Syntax, Semantics, Phonology, Typology/Germany

Editor for this issue: Alison Zaharee <>

        1.     Werner Frey , (Mis)matches in Clause Linkage

Message 1: (Mis)matches in Clause Linkage
Date: 16-Nov-2011
From: Werner Frey <>
Subject: (Mis)matches in Clause Linkage
E-mail this message to a friend

Full Title: (Mis)matches in Clause Linkage Short Title: MiCL
Date: 13-Apr-2012 - 14-Apr-2012 Location: Berlin, Germany Contact Person: Werner Frey
Meeting Email: < click here to access email >
Web Site:
Linguistic Field(s): Phonology; Semantics; Syntax; Typology

Call Deadline: 01-Dec-2011

Meeting Description:

Several kinds of mismatches in clause linkage have been observed in the literature: a. clauses with the shape of selected clauses that seem to be adjuncts of the host clause, e.g. free 'dass' - clauses like 'Hans muss verrückt sein, dass er so viel bezahlt' (Hans must be crazy that he is paying so much), see Reis (1997); b. clauses with the shape of adjuncts that fill a thematic slot in the host clause, e.g. selected 'when'/'if'-clauses like 'John hates it if Mary talks about money' (Fabricius-Hansen 1980) in a range of Indo-European languages; c. formally coordinated structures interpreted as subordinated like 'Drink one more beer and I'll leave' (Culicover & Jackendoff 1997); d. clauses with atypical uses of clause linkers, e.g. English 'how' in clauses like 'Kenneth admitted how there are times when he struggles to keep control of his anger' (Legate 2010); e. other mismatches between syntactic form and semantic interpretation, for example semantically equivalent non-restrictive relatives with different syntactic forms in Italian and other Romance languages (Cinque 2008); f. mismatches between syntactic domains and prosodic integration of embedded clauses, e.g. lack of prosodic separation in cases of strong syntactic separation, for example in English parentheticals (Dehé 2009).

Behind the question of mismatches is a question of matches: Which sentence form canonically comes with which degree of integration (±peripheral in the sense of Haegeman 2006, ±dependent/±integrated in the sense of Reis 1997, mono- or biclausal in the sense of Cinque 2004)? What degree of integration canonically corresponds to what syntactic (Reis 1997), prosodic (Selkirk 2005), or semantic configuration (Portner 2007)?

If matches are economical, why do language systems develop mismatches? What do the mismatch cases show about the proper formulation of mapping regularities? What role do lexical restrictions play in the licensing of mismatches?


L. Downing, W. Frey, A. Meinunger, K. Schwabe, B. Stiebels, H. Truckenbrodt, T. Veenstra (all ZAS Berlin)

2nd Call for Papers:

We invite submissions to a workshop on mismatches in clause linkage that take up the previous questions from both a language-specific and a cross-linguistic point of view, and we look forward to contributions from typologically diverse languages.

Abstract Submission:

We invite abstracts for 40 minute presentations (including discussion).

Submission Guidelines:

- Abstracts should be sent to the following email address: Abstracts should not exceed two pages, including examples and references.- Submissions are restricted to one single-authored and one co-authored abstract at most.- The conference language is English: abstracts and talks will be in English.- Page format: A4, 2.5 cm margins on all sides, 12-point font, single line spacing- File format: .pdf- File name: micl_abstract_surname.pdf

Important Dates:

Deadline for abstract submission: December 1, 2011Notification of acceptance: December 21, 2011

Page Updated: 16-Nov-2011