LINGUIST List 23.2605
Tue Jun 05 2012
Calls: Syntax, Semantics, Pragmatics, Phonology, Typology/Germany
Editor for this issue: Alison Zaharee
Dennis Ott <dennis.ott
DGfS Workshop: Parenthesis and Ellipsis
E-mail this message to a friend
Full Title: DGfS Workshop: Parenthesis and Ellipsis
Date: 13-Mar-2013 - 15-Mar-2013
Location: Potsdam, Germany
Contact Person: Dennis Ott
Meeting Email: < click here to access email >
Linguistic Field(s): Phonology; Pragmatics; Semantics; Syntax; Typology
Call Deadline: 31-Aug-2012
DGfS 2013 WorkshopParenthesis and Ellipsis: Cross-linguistic and Theoretical Perspectives
This AG intends to bring together scholarship on parenthesis and incompleteness phenomena (ellipsis), and especially the interplay between the two.
In addition to 'regular' types of ellipsis (sluicing, VP ellipsis) in parenthetical contexts, various types of parentheses have been argued to be inherently incomplete and/or contain an empty operator: the missing object in comment clauses (Schneider 2007), the implied subject plus copula in appositions (Heringa 2011), covert clausal structure in identificational afterthoughts (Ott & De Vries 2012), etc.
We are interested in empirical differences and similarities between (unrelated) languages in this domain, as well as theoretical approaches to incomplete parenthesis. Since incompleteness is often contingent on information-structural properties, and since parentheses appear to be in a different informational dimension than the 'at issue' content of an utterance (Potts 2005), one expects the intersection of these two domains to reveal interesting facts and generalizations (for instance, concerning the cross-linguistically variable expression of focus).
Thus, we can ask questions like the following:
- To what extent can parentheses be incomplete? Is this similar to regular ellipsis, deaccenting, or various 'drop' phenomena?- What are cross-linguistic similarities and dissimilarities with respect to ellipsis and parenthesis? (Factors may be word-order patterns, case and morphology, prosody, etc.)- How does information structure influence incompleteness phenomena? Does this work differently in parenthetical contexts, and if so, what are the theoretical implications?
Stefan Schneider (U Graz)Luis Vicente (U Potsdam)
Marlies Kluck, Dennis Ott, Mark de Vries (U Groningen)
Heringa, Herman (2011). Appositional constructions. LOT Dissertation Series 294.Ott, Dennis & Mark de Vries (2012). Thinking in the right direction. Submitted to Linguistics in the Netherlands.Potts, Christopher (2005). The logic of conventional implicatures. OUP.Schneider, Stefan (2007). Reduced parenthetical clauses in Romance languages: A pragmatic typology. In N. Dehé and Y. Kavalova (eds.), Parentheticals, 237-258.
Call for Papers:
We welcome submissions related to the workshop theme from all subfields of linguistics, including syntax, semantics, discourse theory, prosody, and typology. The workshop language (abstracts and talks) is English.
We invite abstracts for 30 minute talks. Abstracts must be no longer than two pages (A4, 12pt font), including references and examples. Accepted abstracts will have to be shortened (by their authors) for inclusion in the conference program.
Abstracts must be submitted in PDF format to: incompleteparenthesis
Submission deadline: August 31, 2012Notification: September 7, 2012Workshop: March 13-15, 2013
Page Updated: 05-Jun-2012