LINGUIST List 26.749

Wed Feb 04 2015

Calls: General Ling, Linguistic Theories, Morphology, Syntax/Hungary

Editor for this issue: Anna White <>

Date: 03-Feb-2015
From: Veronika Hegedus <>
Subject: Budapest Conference on Projection and Representation in Syntactic Theory
E-mail this message to a friend

Full Title: Budapest Conference on Projection and Representation in Syntactic Theory

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

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

Call Deadline: 15-Feb-2015

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).

Final Call for Posters:

Extended deadline: 15 February 2015

Abstracts are solicited for posters on any topic related to the theme of the conference (projection and representation in syntactic theory).

Submissions should meet the following restrictions:

- Abstracts must not exceed two pages (A4 or letter size), including examples and references, set in a font no smaller than 11pt with single spacing.
- Abstracts must be anonymous.
- Abstracts should be submitted in PDF, via the conference's EasyChair site:
You can find instructions on how to submit on the conference's website.
- Submissions are restricted to two abstracts per author, at most one of which may be singe-authored.

The deadline for submission of abstracts has been extended to 15 February 2015.

Page Updated: 04-Feb-2015