CRISSP is proud to present the fourth instalment of the Logic Now And Then (LNAT), devoted to scales in language and logic.

LNAT 4: Scales in language and logic
Brussels, September 20-21, 2018.

Invited speakers

• Christopher Kennedy (University of Chicago)
• Stefanie Solt (Leibniz-Zentrum Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft (ZAS))

The submission deadline for abstracts is June 15, 2018.

> Read the complete Call for Papers

Daniel Harbour unfortunately had to cancel his talk at BCGL 10 at short notice. This means that the first talk on day 2 of BCGL will be the one by Tibor Kiss, Francis Jeffry Pelletier, Halima Husic, and Johanna Marie Poppek at 11.00.

The program for BCGL10: The morphology and semantics of person and number is now available. You can consult it here

BCGL10 will take place in Brussels on December 4 and December 5, 2017. For more information, see the conference website.

CRISSP is proud to present the tenth instalment of the Brussels Conference on Generative Linguistics (BCGL), devoted to the morphology and semantics of person and number.

BCGL 10: The Morphology and Semantics of Person and Number
Brussels, December 4-5, 2017.

Invited speakers

• Matthew Baerman (University of Surrey)
• Daniel Harbour (Queen Mary University of London)
• Martina Wiltschko (The University of British Columbia)

Workshop description

Person (in pronominal elements such as independent pronouns, pronominal clitics and affixes and agreement markers) is often believed to be a universal morphosynctactic category in language, which shows great variation in its morphology (Forchheimer 1953; Siewierska 2004; Cysouw 2003). This can be seen in for example the different syncretism patterns that exist between the individual persons and across the numbers. Many accounts of person and number paradigms aim to explain these syncretism patterns by giving a feature-based analysis, such as a.o. Harley & Ritter (2002); Baerman et al. (2005); Bobaljik (2008); Harbour (2016); Ackema & Neeleman (2017). Person and number also show variation in the morphological composition of the individual pronominal elements, in some cases resulting in a markedness hierarchy (Zwicky 1977; Corbett 2000; Moskal 2014; Smith et al. 2016). Consider for example the fact that the morphological form for the inclusive can properly contain that of the exclusive and also vice versa. In this case, there appears to be no morphological markedness relation. However, for number, the plural can contain the morpheme for singular but not vice versa (e.g. Daniel 2005; Nichols & Peterson 2013; Harbour 2016). Semantic distinctions also play a role in markedness relations. For example, third person is a non-participant and therefore different from first and second (e.g. Silverstein 1976). For number, semantic markedness has been argued to be the opposite of morphological markedness, with singular as the more marked category (Sauerland 2008). The aim of this workshop is to explore these and related issues.

The submission deadline for abstracts is September 15, 2017.

> Read the complete Call for Papers

CRISSP is proud to present the tenth instalment of the Brussels Conference on Generative Linguistics (BCGL), devoted to the morphology and semantics of person and number.

BCGL 10: The Morphology and Semantics of Person and Number
Brussels, December 4-5, 2017.

Invited speakers

• Matthew Baerman (University of Surrey)
• Daniel Harbour (Queen Mary University of London)
• Martina Wiltschko (The University of British Columbia)

Workshop description

Person (in pronominal elements such as independent pronouns, pronominal clitics and affixes and agreement markers) is often believed to be a universal morphosynctactic category in language, which shows great variation in its morphology (Forchheimer 1953; Siewierska 2004; Cysouw 2003). This can be seen in for example the different syncretism patterns that exist between the individual persons and across the numbers. Many accounts of person and number paradigms aim to explain these syncretism patterns by giving a feature-based analysis, such as a.o. Harley & Ritter (2002); Baerman et al. (2005); Bobaljik (2008); Harbour (2016); Ackema & Neeleman (2017). Person and number also show variation in the morphological composition of the individual pronominal elements, in some cases resulting in a markedness hierarchy (Zwicky 1977; Corbett 2000; Moskal 2014; Smith et al. 2016). Consider for example the fact that the morphological form for the inclusive can properly contain that of the exclusive and also vice versa. In this case, there appears to be no morphological markedness relation. However, for number, the plural can contain the morpheme for singular but not vice versa (e.g. Daniel 2005; Nichols & Peterson 2013; Harbour 2016). Semantic distinctions also play a role in markedness relations. For example, third person is a non-participant and therefore different from first and second (e.g. Silverstein 1976). For number, semantic markedness has been argued to be the opposite of morphological markedness, with singular as the more marked category (Sauerland 2008). The aim of this workshop is to explore these and related issues.

The submission deadline for abstracts is September 15, 2017.

> Read the complete Call for Papers

Jeroen van Craenenbroeck, Cora Pots, and Guido Vanden Wyngaerd will be presenting talks at the annual Linguistics in the Netherlands (LIN)-day in Utrecht on Feb 4.

CRISSP is proud to present the ninth instalment of the Brussels Conference on Generative Linguistics (BCGL), devoted to Phase Theory.

BCGL 9: Phase Theory
Brussels, December 13-14, 2016.

Invited speakers

• Željko Bošković (UConn)
• Julie Anne Legate (UPenn)
• Gereon Müller (University of Leipzig)

Workshop description

Throughout the history of generative grammar, there have been various ways of implementing locality effects, for example through Transformational Cycles (Chomsky 1965; Kayne 1969) or Barriers (Chomsky 1986). Phase Theory (Uriagereka 1999; Chomsky 2000, 2001) constitutes the most recent development in this line of thinking. It is often argued that there exist discrete structural domains in natural language that exhibit a degree of syntactic, semantic, and phonological independence from their surrounding linguistic environment. Phase Theory offers a tool for understanding such domains. However, since the inception of phases, there have been many different proposals about the specific formalization of this concept, along with much debate about the extent to which phases can be evidenced empirically (and indeed whether phases exist at all). The aim of this workshop is to discuss the empirical validity and theoretical specifics of Phase Theory.
The submission deadline for abstracts is September 1, 2016.

> Read the complete Call for Papers

CRISSP 10

BCGL 9 will be followed by CRISSP 10, a one-day workshop celebrating the 10th anniversary of the research institute CRISSP featuring invited presentations by Luigi Rizzi, Alec Marantz, and Angelika Kratzer, among others.