|
|
Conference description
After the success of the two previous CamCoS conferences, we are happy to announce that CamCoS 3 is going to take place on 8–10 May 2014.
The first half day will feature talks by Cambridge-based researchers, followed by a full-day general session on comparative generative syntax. The final day of the conference will feature a themed session with invited speakers on the topic of variation in the morphophonological, morphosyntactic and morphosemantic domains. Abstracts, which may, but need not, pick up on the conference theme, are invited for the general session.
In relation to the themed session, the central question we would like to address is to what extent it is possible to provide a formal account of cross-linguistic variation in the domain of morphology. More specifically, to the extent that there is a deeper basis to the classic morphological types proposed by 19th and early 20th century philologists and anthropologist-linguists (principally, the Schlegels, Humboldt, Schleicher and Sapir), can they be captured in a principled and explanatory manner? In other words, is it possible to think of morphology in parametric terms?
More specific potential questions include, but are not restricted to:
-
What is the typology of morphology? How can this be captured formally? Is there any evidence that parameter hierarachies regulate morphological variation (see Roberts 2012, Biberauer & Roberts 2012, Biberauer et al. submitted, Sheehan to appear on syntactic parameter hierarchies, and Dresher & Kaye 1990 on phonological parameter hierarchies)?
-
What is the status of classic distinctions such as analytic, synthetic, agglutinating and isolating? Do they have any morphological (or syntactic) basis? Is it, for example, possible to refine our understanding of morphological typology in a way comparable to what generative investigation of classic Greenbergian word-order typology has achieved (see i.a. Broekhuis 2011, Cinque 2013 and Biberauer & Sheehan 2013 for recent discussion)? For example, can generative analyses of agglutination give us insight into the difference(s) between consistently head-final and Bantu-type systems? Or into the difference(s) between concatenative and non-concatenative morphology? Or into how templatic morphology interacts with concatenative morphology?
-
Is there a distinction between purely morphophonological (i.e. PF) variation as distinct from syntactic variation? If so, what are the diagnostics for “surface” (PF) vs “deep” (syntax-internal) variation? If not, can we begin to flesh out the proposal that linguistic variation is restricted to the PF component (cf. Chomsky & Berwick 2011)? What types of PF variation are there? Is it feasible to view all PF variation in terms of PF-internal “depth” vs “surfaceyness”, along the lines proposed in Arregi & Nevins (2012)?
-
To what extent is it true that there is “syntax all the way down” (Halle & Marantz 1993)? Is morphology subject to the same constraints and typological patterns as syntax or do the two domains function differently?
-
Does morphophonological variation give us clues as to the nature of theformal features that regulate the syntactic computation? Can we classify clues of this type in such a way that they might give us insight into how children are able to employ them in language acquisition?
-
Can we identify syntactic properties that determine word structure in given domains? What role, for example, does incorporation play? We know that it can be sanctioned to differing extents in different systems – productive incorporation as in Mohawk (Baker 1988), Athapaskan (Rice 2000) and Algonquian (Denny 1989) vs. pronoun incorporation as in Chichewa (Bresnan & Mchombo 1987) vs. preposition incorporation as in Mandarin (Gao 2005) vs. restricted noun incorporation as in Dutch, etc.): does this have further consequences?
-
Are there fundamental formal differences between concatenative and non-concatenative morphology? Can we identify degrees of “templaticity”? Consider, for example, the verb templates proposed for Bantu (Meeussen 1967; Nurse 2003; Hyman 2007) as opposed to what has been proposed for Athapaskan (Kari 1989; Rice 2000), or the Root- and-Pattern morphology found in Afroasiatic (McCarthy 1982; Kramer 2009) and that ascribed to Sign Languages (Sandler & Lillo-Martin 2006). Does the amount of inflectional and/or derivational morphology affect the templatic organisation of the inflectional system (Stump 2006)?
The invited speakers for CamCoS 3 are:
Iris Berent (Northeastern University)
Phil Branigan (Memorial University)
Dunstan Brown (University of York)
Nigel Duffield (Konan University)
Daniel Harbour (Queen Mary, University of London) – tbc
Martina Wiltschko (University of British Columbia)
For the general comparative syntax session, we invite abstracts for 30-minute presentations on any topic in comparative generative syntax as well as the topics outlined above. We particularly welcome papers explicitly addressing parametric issues and/or offering comparative analyses (synchronic or diachronic) of previously un(der)studied languages and/or phenomena, and papers concerned with “bigger picture” questions, such as what insights modern comparative generative syntax might offer in relation to linguistic typology and syntax-interface mappings. We also encourage papers concerned with methodologies for modern comparative generative syntax.
Anonymous abstracts should not exceed two pages (12-point Times New Roman font, with single spacing and margins of at least 2.54cm/1 inch), including examples and references. They should be uploaded in pdf format via EasyAbstracts (http://linguistlist.org/easyabs/ camcos3). The submission deadline is Wednesday, 15 January 2014.
For more information, please see the conference and project website (http://www-falcon. csx.cam.ac.uk/site/RECOS/conference/camcos-3/camcos3-info) or contact Theresa Biberauer (mtb23@cam.ac.uk).
|
