BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//Talks.cam//talks.cam.ac.uk//
X-WR-CALNAME:Talks.cam
BEGIN:VEVENT
SUMMARY:Why phonology is flat: the role of concatenation and linearity - D
 r Tobias Sheer (Directeur de Recherche au CNRS\, University of Nice\, Soph
 ia-Antipolis)
DTSTART:20160225T160000Z
DTEND:20160225T173000Z
UID:TALK61220@talks.cam.ac.uk
CONTACT:Theodora Alexopoulou
DESCRIPTION:The genuine contribution of Government Phonology to phonologic
 al theory are lateral relations among syllabic constituents. Government an
 d licensing describe a dependency relationship between a head and a depend
 ent\, but are non-arboreal. Their application therefore mechanically leads
  to the elimination of trees (deforestation).\nThe talk investigates wheth
 er there is reason to believe that dependency relations (which are ubiquit
 ous in language) are embodied by two distinct mechanisms in morpho-syntax 
 (trees) and phonology (lateral relations). It is shown that the different 
 expression of dependency in syntax and phonology is due to two things: a d
 esign property of syntax\, concatenation (which is absent from phonology)\
 , and an input condition to phonological computation\, linearity (which is
  absent from syntax). \nHierarchical structure is thus implemented in modu
 le-specific ways: concatenation in syntax (the minimalist device Merge) pr
 oduces trees (while invalidating the lateral option). It is therefore argu
 ed that the arboreal means of expressing dependency relations is the resul
 t of concatenation\, and of nothing else: no concatenation\, no trees. It 
 thus follows from the fact that phonology does not concatenate anything th
 at there cannot be any tree-building device in this module. An appreciable
  side-effect of this perspective is an explanation of a long-standing obse
 rvation\, i.e. the absence of recursion in phonology: no trees\, no recurs
 ion. On the other hand\, linearity in phonology produces lateral relations
  (and makes trees unworkable). \nA related issue discussed is what kinds o
 f third factor explanation are desirable\, given that everybody is after 
 ‘‘more general\, language-unspecific’’ motivations for the working
 s of grammar: Chomskian minimalism/biolinguistics as much as anti-chomskia
 n ‘‘Cognitive’’ Grammar and the work in Dependency Phonology (John
  Anderson). Candidates are global notions such as cognitive salience on th
 e one hand\, or more concrete things such as linearity and concatenation o
 n the other. It appears that the current striving for the former is an att
 empt at turning back the clocks: the evolution of Cognitive Science since 
 Franz-Joseph Gall’s 19th century phrenology was in the opposite directio
 n.\n
LOCATION:GR06/07\, English Faculty Building\, 9 West Road\, Sidgwick Site
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR