Workshop Myopia in Grammar

Call for Papers: Myopia in Grammar

13-14 June 2024 at Universität Leipzig

In grammatical systems where morphological and syntactic structure is built incrementally or cyclically there is no 'look ahead'. Operations in a more embedded domain cannot be sensitive to more peripheral structure since this is only added later in the derivation. Similarly, the conditioning of iterative phonological rules (as in the modeling of vowel harmony) is blind to the overall result of its combined recursive application. In the terminology of Collins (1997) and Wilson (2003,2006), these processes are 'myopic' (see also Demuth & Gruber 1994 and Bobaljik 1995). In a mirror image to prospective myopia, grammatical operations also typically exhibit retrospective myopia which blocks 'looking back' in derivational history by mechanisms such as Bracket Erasure and Phases, especially the Phase Impenetrability Condition (Chomsky 2008, Müller 2010). In the last decades, myopia has become crucial as a litmus test for fundamental formal properties of grammatical systems, such as the assumption of Phases in minimalist syntax (Chomsky 2008) or for the stepwise optimization processes assumed in Harmonic Serialism (McCarthy 2016, Müller 2020, Torres-Tamarit 2016).

The goal of this workshop is to bring together researchers with different theoretical backgrounds to advance the empirical and theoretical understanding of myopia. In particular, we welcome contributions which address the following topics and questions:

• The empirical extent of myopia across grammar: Myopic effects are documented in all modules of grammar (syntax, morphology, phonology and semantics). In morphology it has been argued that selection or allomorphy of affixal exponents cannot be sensitive to properties of more outwards affixes (Bobaljik 2000, Paster 2006, 2015, Embick 2010). There is an ongoing debate on the existence of (non-)myopic effects in vowel harmony (see Walker 2010, Kimper 2012, Mascaró 2019). In syntax, quantifier raising to an intermediate position may be blocked locally even when it would be motivated globally (Bobaljik & Wurmbrand 2013).
• Different formal models of myopia: Whereas myopia has often been equated with rule-based approaches, the development of Harmonic Serialism, Stratal OT and Cophonology Theory has led to a wide variety of formal means to model myopia differing in myopic domains and the way myopia is integrated in the architecture of grammar. However, it is still a largely open question how diverging theoretical models differ in their specific predictions.
• Myopia in grammar and computation: Jardine (2016) shows that the (absence of the) 'sour-grape' property of harmony processes crucial in theoretical work on Harmonic Serialism has a direct equivalent in terms of computational complexity. However, the types of myopia assumed in theoretical work and those relevant for computation do not perfectly coincide. We especially welcome contributions addressing this divide.

Abstract guidelines

• Max. 2 pages of A4 paper, including references, examples, tables and figures
• 12pt Times New Roman font or similar
• 1in (2.54cm) margins on all sides
• The abstract must not reveal the identity of the author in any way
• PDF format
• Abstracts not following these guidelines will be rejected without review

Abstracts should be send to the following email adress: tebay [at] uni-leipzig.de

Deadline of submission

January 31 2024

Notification of acceptance

Mid March 2024

References

• Bobaljik, J. D. (1995). Morphosyntax: The Syntax of Verbal Inflection. PhD thesis, MIT.
• Bobaljik, J. D. (2000) The Ins and Outs of Contextual Allomorphy. Edited by Kleanthes K. Grohmann and Caro Struijke. University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics, 10, 35-71.
• Bobaljik, J. D. and Wurmbrand, S. (2013) Suspension across domains. In Marantz, A. and Matushansky, O.(eds.) Distributed Morphology Today: Morphemes for Morris Halle, 185–198. MIT Press.
• Collins, Chris (1997) Local Economy. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
• Demuth, K. & Gruber, J. (1994) Constraining XP Sequences. Ms., Brown University & Université de Québec.
• Embick, D. (2010) Localism versus Globalism in Morphology and Phonology. MIT Press.
• Jardine, A. (2016) Computationally, tone is different. Phonology 33:247–283.
• Kimper, W. (2012) Harmony is myopic: Reply to Walker 2010. Linguistic Inquiry 43(2):301–309.
• Joan Mascaró (2019) On the lack of evidence for nonmyopic harmony. Linguistic Inquiry 50(4):862-872.
• McCarthy, J. J. (2016) The theory and practice of harmonic serialism. In McCarthy, J. and Pater, J., editors, Harmonic Grammar and Harmonic Serialism, pages 47–87. Equinox, London.
• Müller, G. (2010) On deriving CED effects from the PIC. Linguistic Inquiry, 41:35–82.
• Müller, G. (2020) Inflectional Morphology in Harmonic Serialism. Equinox, London.
• Paster, M. (2006) Phonological Conditions on Affixation. PhD thesis, University Of California, Berkeley.
• Paster, M. (2015) Phonologically conditioned suppletive allomorphy: Cross-linguistic results and theoretical consequences. In Bonet, E., Lloret, M.-R., and Mascaró, J. (eds.) Understanding Allomorphy: Perspectives from Optimality Theory, pages 218–253. Equinox, London.
• Torres-Tamarit, F. (2016) Servigliano revisited: An examination from constrained-based serialism. Journal of Linguistics 52(3): 689-708.
• Walker, R. (2010) Nonmyopic harmony and the nature of derivations. Linguistic Inquiry 41:169–179.
• Wilson, Colin (2003) Analyzing unbounded spreading with constraints: marks, targets, and derivations. Ms, University of California, Los Angeles.
• Wilson, Colin (2006) Unbounded spreading is myopic. Paper presented at the Phonology Fest Workshop on Current Perspectives on Phonology, Indiana University.

Invited speakers

Program (Room 420, Neues Seminargebäude, Universitätsstraße 1, 04109 Leipzig)