LINGUIST List 26.1586

Tue Mar 24 2015

Confs: General Linguistics, Linguistic Theories, Morphology, Syntax/Hungary

Editor for this issue: Anna White <>

Date: 23-Mar-2015
From: Veronika Hegedus <>
Subject: Budapest Conference on Projection and Representation in Syntactic Theory
E-mail this message to a friend

Budapest Conference on Projection and Representation in Syntactic Theory

Date: 13-Apr-2015 - 14-Apr-2015
Location: Budapest, Hungary
Contact: Veronika Hegedus
Contact Email: < click here to access email >
Meeting URL:

Linguistic Field(s): General Linguistics; Linguistic Theories; Morphology; Syntax

Meeting Description:

The notion of projection in generative linguistic theory has for the most part been a matter of stipulation. In syntax, X-bar theory codified the projection of a head to a phrase, via an intermediate projection level involving complementation; adjuncts could freely be added to the structure via the adjunction operation. Movement of a phrase into the periphery of a higher projection involved either substitution for a specifier position or adjunction; either way, the target of movement was guaranteed to project, by virtue of the X-bar-theoretic principles. In the minimalist program, the requirement that the target of movement project was derived independently, and X-bar structure was simplified or abolished altogether (Kayne 1994, Chomsky 1995:Chapter 4, Brody 1998, 2000). Without X-bar structure stipulating the organization of syntactic phrases, fundamental questions arise regarding the nature of and constraints on projection. Projections might not have to have a (unique) head. Perhaps the labelling problem posed by XP–YP structures could help derive a central ingredient of the standardly adopted derivation of long-distance filler–gap dependencies: successive-cyclic movement (Chomsky 2013). Thus exploited, problems of projection may then turn from explanandum into explicans.

The notion of projection is centrally tied in with the representation of syntactic structure. Are syntactic structures projected from a head to a phrase, or are phrases traced back to their heads? Are filler–gap dependencies, constructions in which an element is pronounced in a position in which it seems unable to perform its role as an argument, predicate or modifier, derived via upward displacement of the filler or instead base-generated in a representational approach that traces the filler from its pronunciation position back to the gap (see Brody 2002 for critical discussion)? The derivational approach has had the upper hand in the generative approach, leading to the postulation of intermediate links in a chain derived by successive-cyclic movement. The applicability of the derivational approach to all cases of apparent displacement has frequently been called into question; the successive cyclicity that the standard approach embodies has become the subject of debate as well. If non-derivational approaches are desirable for certain cases, perhaps a purely representational approach would be applicable to all filler–gap dependencies uniformly. With this comes the prospect of the grammar and the parser being folded into a single mechanism for the building of structures and the dependencies within them.

This conference is held in honour of the 60th birthday of Michael Brody. It will feature talks by invited speakers from Brody's circle (former and present colleagues and students) who have contributed to questions of projection and representation in syntactic theory. In addition, the conference will have a poster session that is open for submissions on any topic related to the theme of the conference (projection and representation in syntactic theory).


Budapest Conference on Projections and Representations
in honour of Michael Brody

Research Institute for Linguistics
Hungarian Academy of Sciences

April 13-14, 2015

Monday, April 13

Opening remarks
István Kenesei (RIL/HAS)

String theory
Michael Brody (RIL/HAS)

10:20-10:40 Coffee/tea break

Scope marking as projection
Hans van de Koot (UCL) [joint work with Harris Constantinou (Leeds) and Ad Neeleman (UCL)]

Mandarin Chinese dou with rightward associates
Huba Bartos (RIL/HAS)

12:20-13:30 Lunch break

On categories and hierarchies: Ergativity splits in Indo-Iranian languages
M. Rita Manzini (Florence)

The Person-Case Constraint provides no evidence for cyclic Agree
Katalin É. Kiss (RIL/HAS & PPCU)

15:10-15:30 Coffee/tea break

AP adjacency as a precedence constraint
Zoe Belk & Ad Neeleman (UCL)

Poster Session:

No projection, no label: the format of root declaratives - evidence from V2
Andreas Blümel (Karl Franzens University Graz)

The Left Periphery: ''Rigid'' vs. ''Flexible'' Syntax
Elena Callegari (University of Oslo)

Binding by possessors in Colloquial Finnish and Chinese
Matthew Reeve (University College London)

The Copula in VSO languages: Projection, labeling and X(P)-movement
Koldo Sainz

Small Clause Projection
Marcelo Sibaldo (Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco)

On Genitive of Quantification in Polish, the phase theory and structure of nominals
Jacek Witkoś & Dominika Dziubała-Szrejbrowska (Adam Mickiewicz University)

Tuesday, April 14

Licensing specifiers
Marcel den Dikken (CUNY Graduate Center & RIL/HAS)

The syntax of information structure and the PF interface
Kriszta Szendrői (UCL)

11:10-11:30 Coffee/tea break

The cartography of yes and no in West Flemish
Liliane Haegeman & Andrew Weir (Ghent)

Closing remarks

For details on registration and local information, please visit the conference website:


Page Updated: 24-Mar-2015