Information Structure, Prosody 

and Phase Theory in Slavic 

Invited speakers: Željko Bošković (University of Connecticut)

Steven Franks (Prof. Emeritus at Indiana University Bloomington)

Since the original work on Phase Theory (Uriagereka 1999, Chomsky 2000, 2001) has introduced the idea that syntactic derivation is spelled out phonologically and computed semantically in discrete units, termed phases, the research on the relevance of phases to a variety of grammatical phenomena has been both prolific and influential, affecting virtually every aspect of linguistic theorizing. It has included the search for empirical evidence for phases in the nominal and verbal domains and the question of phase taxonomy, phase permanence/contextuality of phases as well as the question of possible cross-linguistic variation in this domain. There is a growing body of literature suggesting that phases are relevant not only to syntactic phenomena and operations, such as successive-cyclic movement and AGREE, but also to such inherently interface phenomena as ellipsis (Bošković 2014), phrasal stress assignments (Kratzer and Selkirk 2007) and information structure (López 2009). The hypothesis of multiple Spell-Out has affected theories of Prosody-Syntax interface, leading to the view that prosodic structure might be identical to phases/phasal domains (“the strong hypothesis”) as well as that phases/phasal domains, rather than syntactic structure, might serve as the basis for creating prosodic structure (“the weak hypothesis”, see Elfner 2018). As for the information structure-syntax interface, phase edges has been argued to be the places where syntax/pragmatics rules apply (López 2009); and research on cross-linguistic variation in word order has suggested some cross-linguistic differences in this regard may be reducible to the specifics of phase-based AGREE relation within the feature-inheritance theory with either φ-features or discourse-features (Miyagawa 2005) or both (Jiménez Fernández 2010, Jiménez Fernández and Rozwadowska 2016 i.a.)

The research on phases has thus given rise to a great number of important questions, e.g., the nature of what is being spelled out – the phase vs the domain of the phase, whether or not phases vary cross-linguistically, whether the inventory of phases is fixed, whether what is a phase varies depending on the context, the timing of Spell Out and the process of linearization, the identity of binding domains within phase theory  (Antonenko 2012; Bošković 2016; den Dikken 2009; Franks 2017; Franks & Bošković 2001; Gallego 2007; Gallego & Uriagereka 2006, i.a.), to name but a few. The discourse configurational nature of Slavic languages arguably makes them an especially suitable testing ground for these and other important questions. The aim of the workshop is to provide a platform for discussing issues bearing on the nature of phases and/or their interaction with specific linguistic phenomena viewed through the prism of Slavic languages. 

The workshop (to be held in Graz as part of the FDSL 16 Conference) welcomes submissions on any topic related to Phase Theory that draw on linguistic data from Slavic languages and we especially welcome submissions exploring the interaction between phases, information structure and prosody. The questions of interest constitute, but are not limited to the following:

·      What information structural effects in Slavic languages can be attributed to phases?

·      What prosodic effects in Slavic languages can be attributed to phases?

·      Are there Slavic-specific phenomena that can be attributed to phases?

·      Are there any Slavic-specific arguments for the debate on what is spelled out – phases or phasal complements?

·      How do phases interact with ellipsis in Slavic?

·      How do phases interact with quantification?

·      How can prominent phenomena of Information Structure and word order be modeled within our current models of phase theory and multiple Spell-Out?

·      What type of theory of Syntax-Information Structure-Prosody interface can be formulated based on the Slavic data?

We invite submissions for 30 minute oral presentations  (plus 15 min for Qs+discussion). 

Abstract Submission:

Abstracts must not exceed 2 pages (including examples, graphs, references). They should have 2.5 cm or 1 inch margins, should be single-spaced, in a font size not smaller than 12 pt.

Examples, graphs, etc., should be intertwined in the text (rather than placed at the end).

Abstracts must be anonymous (nothing in the abstract or the document should identify the

authors) and must be submitted in PDF format via Oxford Abstracts

Deadline for the receipt of abstracts: May 15, 2023 May 31, 2023

Notification of acceptance: August 15, 2023 August 31, 2023

Conference e-mail: fdsl16@uni-graz.at

Selected References

Antonenko, A. (2012). Feature Based Binding and Phase Theory. Ph.D. Dissertation, Stony Brook University.

Bošković, Ž. (2014). Now I’m a phase, now I’m not a phase. Linguistic Inquiry 45:27-89. 

Bošković, Ž. (2015). From the Complex NP Constraint to everything. The Linguistic Review32:603-669. 

Bošković, Ž. (2016a). On the timing of labeling: Deducing Comp-trace effects, the Subject Condition, the Adjunct Condition, and tucking in from labeling. The Linguistic Review 33:17-66.

Bošković, Ž. (2016b). Getting really edgy: On the edge of the edge. Linguistic Inquiry 47:1-33.

Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries. In Step by step, ed. Roger Martin et al, 89-155. Cambridge: MIT Press. 

Chomsky, N. (2008). On phases. In Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, ed. Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero, and Maria L. Zubizarreta, 133-166. Cambridge: MIT Press. 

Citko, B. (2014). Phase Theory: An Introduction (Research Surveys in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Doi:10.1017/CBO9781139644037

Elfner, E. (2018). The syntax-prosody interface: current theoretical approaches and outstanding questions. Linguistics Vanguard, 4(1), 20160081. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0081

Franks, S., & Bošković, Željko. (2001). An Argument for Multiple Spell-Out. Linguistic Inquiry 32(1), 174-183. https://www.muse.jhu.edu/article/20040.

Franks, S. (2010). On the Mechanics of Spell-Out. in The Sound Patterns of Syntax, ed. by N. Erteschik-Shir & L. Rochman. Oxford University Press, 110–139.

Franks, S. (2011). Dynamic Spell-Out as Interface Optimization. in Formalization of Grammar in Slavic Languages, ed. by P. Kosta and L. Schürcks, 127–163.

Franks, S. (2017). Syntax and Spell-Out in Slavic. Bloomington: Slavica Publishers.

Gallego, A. (2007). Phase Theory and Parametric Variation. PhD Dissertation in Cognitive Science and Language, Barcelona: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.

Gallego, Á. & J. Uriagereka. (2007). Conditions on subextraction, in L. Eguren & O. Fernández Soriano (eds.), Coreference, Modality, and Focus. Amsterdam/Philadephia, John Benjamins, pp. 45-70. 

Jiménez–Fernández, Á. (2010). Discourse-agreement features, phasal C and the edge: A minimalist approach. Diacrítica – Language Sciences Series 24(1). 25–49. 

Jiménez-Fernández, Á.L. & Spyropoulos, V. (2013). Feature Inheritance, vP Phases and the Information Structure of Small Clauses. Studia Linguist, 67: 185-224. https://doi.org/10.1111/stul.12013

Jiménez Fernández, Á.L. & B. Rozwadowska. (2016). The information structure of Dative Experiencer psych verbs. En M. Zabawa, M. Kuczok, B. Cetnarowska (Ed.), Various Dimensions of Contrastive Studies (pp. 100-121). Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego

Kratzer, A. & E. Selkirk. (2007). Phase theory and prosodic spellout: The case of verbs. The Linguistic Review 24 (2-3), pp. 93-135. https://doi.org/10.1515/TLR.2007.005

López, L. (2009). A derivational syntax for information structure (Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 23). Oxford: Oxford University Press, Pp. xii+293.

Miyagawa, S. (2010). Why agree? Why move? Unifying agreement-based and discourse configurational languages. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 54. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Uriagereka, J.( 1999). Multiple Spell Out. In Working Minimalism, Sam Epstein and Norbert Hornstein (Eds). MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.