We invite submissions for 30-minute talks plus 10 minutes for discussion. Abstracts must be anonymous, in PDF format, 2 pages (A4 or letter), in a font size no less than 12pt, and with margins of 1 inch/2.5cm. Please submit abstracts via EasyAbs (see link below) no later than July 20, 2014.
Abstract submission link: http://linguistlist.org/easyabs/pronouns2014
Ideal submissions to this workshop might address (but are not limited to) the following topics (individually or in combination):
- Are there novel empirical findings (e.g. from psycholinguistic testing / corpus work / diachronic investigations) that shed light on the distribution of different pronouns (e.g.personal vs demonstrative vs logophoric) in embedded clauses?
- What types of pronouns can refer to the ‘speaker’ in Free Indirect Discourse (e.g. is there a difference between null vs. overt vs. personal vs. demonstrative pronouns)?
- Which attitude predicates (think, convince, regret, doubt, …) in matrix clauses give rise to ‘de se’ readings on embedded pronouns, and what other factors are involved (e.g. does negation in the matrix clause have an impact on the availability of de se readings)? Does the type of embedded clause (root vs non-root, factive vs non-factive) impact the availability of de se vs de re readings for embedded pronouns?
- Whenever there is an antecedent in the matrix clause, does the acceptability of null vs clitic vs personal vs demonstrative pronouns in an embedded clause interact with the choice of matrix predicate?
- Do we observe gender mismatch between a matrix attitude holder and an embedded pronoun? Does it interact with the de se / de re distinction? (e.g. German ”Das Mädchen glaubt, dass es/sie krank ist.” = ‘The girl(neuter) believes that it/she is sick.’)
- How are person features interpreted in embedded contexts? What does their
interpretation teach us on the notions of indexicality and anaphoricity?
- What is the distribution and interpretation of arbitrary pronouns in embedded contexts?
- What is the division of labour between narrow grammar and pragmatics with respect to (anti-)logophoricity?