LNAT4: Scales in language and logic

Brussels, September 20-21, 2018


Call for Papers

Theme description

Scalarity is a rich field of study in linguistics and logic. Linguistically, it enters into the meaning of a wide range of expressions.  The best-known case in degree semantics may well be the gradable adjective (tall, short, likely, good), but cross-categorially many other cases have been detected and analysed in similar scalar terms:

  • Verbs: degree achievement verbs (broaden, widen), directed motion (rise, drop), measure verbs (cost), psych-verbs (like, amuse);
  • Nouns: gradable nouns (an utter fool, a slight disappointment);
  • Adverbs: intensifying (hard/much), focus associating (only, even, merely);
  • Prepositions: (above, before, under);
  • Cardinal and ordinal numerals (five, sixth);
  • Quantifiers (many, more, most, all, few).

Given the crucial role of scalarity in the semantics of vague adjectives and nouns (e.g. tall, heap), it can help to understand the sorites paradox, which has been studied extensively in philosophical logic (Keefe 2000). Some solutions to this paradox, such as Williamson’s (1994) epistemicism, stick to classical logic, while others move to systems of many-valued logic. An interesting philosophical question is whether the latter move can or should be understood as transforming truth itself into a scalar notion.

The semantic scales that have been proposed in degree semantics to account for gradability are standardly (Kennedy 2007, Solt 2015) viewed as (i) a set of values (ii) with an associated ordering relation and (iii) a dimension of measurement.  But that is where the uniformity ends, given that there are – in many cases real, in some cases possibly eliminable – elements of variation for each of the three components of a scale. Some scales are viewed as involving a discrete linear order of values, others as dense (with a third value between any two other values), though it has also been argued (Fox & Hackl 2006) that all measurement is dense. Some scales involve conventionalized units of measurement (cm, min, etc.), others don’t. Some have scalar endpoints at both ends, some at neither, and some at one end (Kennedy & McNally 2005). The values on the scales have been identified as degrees, which can be thought as points on the scale (Beck 2011), but also as extents (Seuren 1973), vectors (Zwarts 2003), etc. (cf. Solt 2015, 23) And while there is a wide range of possible dimensions (volume, weight, age, duration, distance, etc.), the orders they involve come in a limited number of types (ordinal, interval or ratio orders). Moreover, such types of scales seem to be metaphorically connected to properties of spatial axes in a constrained number of ways (Nouwen, sd): vertical in the case of number (under 50 attendants), very often horizontal for time expressions (after three minutes), for instance.

Given that linguistic expressions of scalar opposition are so often latched on to spatial experience, it would also be useful to discover whether and, if so, which kinds of geometrical diagrams for scalarity have been proposed in the literature (a case in point are those introduced in Ogden 1932, 16).  While the question which diagrams have been proposed has a historical interest in its own right, the features of such diagrams may provide clarifying perspectives on the phenomenon itself.

Since a nonlinear relation between causal stimuli and their mental representation – in the form of compressed logarithmic scales – is characteristic of several modes of perception (colour vision, overtones in music, touch, taste, etc.), the possible connection between such perceptual scales in human cognition and scalarity as it surfaces in language and logic is an issue of considerable interest (cf. Dehaene et al. 2009 on number).

 In view of the above, we welcome papers which contribute to the correct identification of  (i) the nature and variation of scalarity in language and logic, (ii) the diagrams proposed for scalar notions, as well as (iii) the nature of possible connections between logico-linguistic scalar concepts and perception scales.

Invited speakers

We are pleased to announce that the following invited speakers have agreed to give a talk at LNAT4:

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

Abstract Guidelines

Abstracts should be in PDF-format, anonymous, at most one page long, and should include any example sentences. A second page may be added for bibliographical references only. Please submit abstracts through EasyChair, using the following link:


Authors may submit at most one individual and one co-authored abstract.

The abstract submission deadline is 15 June 2018, midnight, Brussels time. Notification of acceptance will be on July 15, 2018.

Important Dates

First call for papers: April 1, 2018

Second call for papers: May 1, 2018
Abstract submission deadline: June 15, 2018
Notification of acceptance: July 15, 2018
Conference: September 20-21, 2018

Organizing Committee

  • Lorenz Demey
  • Dany Jaspers
  • Cora Pots
  • Hans Smessaert
  • Jolijn Sonnaert
  • Tanja Temmerman
  • Jeroen van Craenenbroeck
  • Guido vanden Wyngaerd

CFP: What’s (the) News? Values, Viruses and Vectors of Newsworthiness

13-14 December 2018
Third biennial conference of the Brussels Institute for Journalism Studies (BIJU)
Department of Applied Linguistics
Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Belgium

Deadline for proposals: 30 June 2018

Plenary speakers
Monika Bednarek (University of Sydney, Australia)
Tony Harcup (University of Sheffield, UK)

Steered by what Kovach & Rosenstiel describe as our ‘awareness instinct’, exchanging ‘news’ fulfills basic human needs for information, orientation, and connection. The entanglement of ‘news’, understood as recent and current public information, and the development of journalism (as a profession), renders the question what ‘is’ or ‘becomes’ news highly relevant for the study of journalism. One particularly influential approach to ‘newsworthiness’ in journalism studies emerged from Galtung and Ruge’s 1965 seminal study on ‘news values’ in (foreign) news reporting. The core question of this study was which criteria journalists apply in the news selection process. The authors contend that (negative) events having to do with conflict, elites or change in the daily lives or the immediate environment of the audience are likely to become news. Especially if they have some magnitude and if they are recent, unexpected and/or if they can be linked to individ
ual people. Since then, numerous scholars taking sociological or critical cultural approaches to ‘news values’, and selection and journalistic routines in general, have revisited their ideas, and refined and complemented them.
These insights have been applicable to a lesser or greater extent throughout the whole history of journalism, yet, the digital era and the advent of social media more specifically have altered vectors – understood both as agents and carriers – of newsworthiness significantly, reshaping how ‘news’ is conceived, the way it comes about and is exchanged. Within a networked, globalized environment, the range of sources that are available to journalists or that are able to trigger ‘news’ on a day-to-day basis has expanded considerably, while a plethora of newcomers (e.g. citizen journalists, alternative, grassroots and partisan media outlets) in or at the margins of the journalistic field challenge traditional conceptions of ‘newsworthiness’, as well as the relationship between ‘journalism’ and ‘news’ per se (e.g. in ‘slow journalism’ and ‘constructive journalism’ movements). Even if the position of these newcomers along traditional news media’s status as
primary definers of ‘the news’ may still be subject to debate, it is hard to deny the impact of digitization and social media on contemporary audiences’ daily ‘news diet’.
Amongst others, search engines, (automated) news aggregators, and social media platforms, and their underlying algorithms, have become key to understanding how news emerges and circulates nowadays. Social media allow to register which stories are clicked, liked or shared most and thus to examine which topics and approaches raise the highest interest of the audience. Journalists are expected to develop a feeling for ‘shareability’ and to produce texts and visuals which will ‘go viral’. The focus in the selection process seems to have shifted ever more from what journalists deemed fit to publish towards what the audience is expected to appreciate most. Moreover, as clicks, likes and shares are monitored automatically, news stories which receive the most attention of readers are moved up higher in the news flow, so that they are picked up even more often. This presentation process often happens without human intervention, thus leaving the selection entirely to the appreciation
of the audience. Furthermore, these developments have also led to highly customized news packages – ‘me media’ – and the related issues of the ‘filter bubble’ and ‘echo chamber’.
However, it is still the journalist (or is it the ‘news worker’) who decides what shape the story will take and which aspects will be accentuated. The topic of news values can therefore also be approached from a linguistic/discursive side. The main question then is how news workers construct an event as interesting or relevant, i.e. how they use language to make certain events newsworthy, especially on the internet media platforms. And taking into consideration the importance of visual resources on these platforms, an analysis of verbal text will in many cases have to be replaced by or complemented with a multimodal analysis.
We invite participants to engage in a critical discussion of newsworthiness. Possible questions which can be addressed are: are there topics which are newsworthy by nature, which elements arouse most interest in human psyche, which stories and/or sources do journalists and their audience find worth sharing, how do news values vary between media types and news beats, how can journalists or news workers construct issues or events as interesting, what is the relation between newsworthiness and publishing platforms.
Inspirational literature:
Bednarek, Monika & Helen Caple (2017). The Discourse of News Values: How News Organizations Create ‘Newsworthiness’. New York: Oxford University Press.

Harcup, Tony & Deirdre O’Neill (2017). What is news? News values revisited (again). Journalism Studies, 18 (12). pp. 1470-1488.

We welcome submissions from all relevant disciplinary backgrounds approaching topics including but certainly not limited to:
• News values in the selection of news
• News values in the production of news
• The linguistic or multimodal construction of an event as newsworthy
• The relation between publishing platforms and newsworthiness
• What makes news ‘go viral’
• Algorithms and automation in the presentation of news
• Methodological approaches to the study of newsworthiness

We welcome both qualitative and quantitative methodologies, and analyses at process, product/text, and/or audience level.
All papers will be published (after the authors’ consent) in the electronic proceedings of the conference and we are planning to publish a selection of the papers in a volume and/or a special issue.
Junior researchers are warmly invited to participate.
The venue for the conference will be the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences (https://www.naturalsciences.be/en) Vautierstraat/Rue Vautier 29, 1000 Brussels, near the Brussels-Luxembourg station, a lively neighbourhood with lots of hotels and restaurants.

Conference fee (including pre-conference reception, lunch, coffee):
€ 150 (regular participants), € 75 (PhD students).
Dinner will be organized on Friday 14 December and charged separately.

Please send a proposal of no more than 300 words (excluding selected references) together with your affiliation and a short biography (c. 100 words) to whatnews@vub.be by 30 June 2018. Decisions will be announced by 15 August. Questions about any aspect of the conference should be addressed to whatnews@vub.be.
For updates on the practical organization, please check our website.

CFP: Journée linguistique 2018

Comme chaque année, le CBL (Cercle Belge de Linguistique) organise une journée linguistique. Cette année la conférence aura lieu le vendredi 25 mai 2018 à la Faculté de Lettres et Philosophie de l’Université de Liège.

Les communications (20’ de présentation + 10’ de discussion) peuvent traiter d’un sujet linguistique quelconque et peuvent se faire dans une des trois langues nationales (néerlandais, français, allemande) ou en anglais. Les propositions (max. 500 mots, sans références) doivent indiquer clairement le sujet, les objectifs, les données et la méthode utilisées ainsi que les résultats (provisoires). Toutes les propositions (avec le nom et l’affiliation des auteurs) peuvent être envoyées jusqu’au 21 avril 2018 à https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=cbl20180. Avant le 1 mai 2018 vous serez mis au courant de l’acceptation de votre proposition.

Toutes les activités (conférences et déjeuner) auront lieu dans le bâtiment principal (A1) du campus de la ville de l’Université de Liège. L’adresse est Place du 20 août, 4000 Liège. Il est à distance de marche de la gare de Liège-Palais. De la gare de Liège-Guillemins, prendre le bus (TEC) jusqu’à l’arrêt « Opéra », d’où vous pourrez rejoindre le bâtiment de l’université par la place de la République française et la rue de l’Université. Vous pouvez charger vos tickets TEC sur votre carte MOBIB (SNCB).

La participation à la journée linguistique est gratuite pour les membres ainsi que pour les non-membres. Ceux qui veulent faire une communication doivent être membres. Les nouveaux membres ont rempli la fiche d’adhésion et payé la cotisation — € 40 pour ceux qui veulent obtenir le dernier volume du Belgian Journal of Linguistics pour l’année 2018, autrement € 20.

Comme l’année passée, cette année il y aura également un prix pour la meilleure présentation par un doctorant. Si vous désirez participer, vous devez le mentionner lors de la soumission de votre proposition.

Dates importantes
· 21 avril 2018 : date limite pour la soumission des propositions
· 1 mai 2018 : confirmation d’acceptation
· 18 mai 2018 : date limite pour l’inscription pour le déjeuner
· 25 mai 2018 : Journée Linguistique

Lot Brems
Dominique Longrée
Nicolas Mazziotta
Julien Perrez
Laurent Rasier
Marie Steffens
An Van linden

Comité scientifique:
Miriam Bouzouita (UGent), Timothy Colleman (UGent), Bert Cornillie (KU Leuven), Walter Daelemans (UAntwerpen), Philippe De Brabanter (ULB), Sabine De Knop (USL), Gert De Sutter (UGent), Patrick Dendale (UAntwerpen), Thomas François (UCLouvain), Alex Housen (VUB), Marie-Aude Lefer (UCLouvain), Nicolas Mazziotta (ULiège), Fanny Meunier (UCLouvain), Tanja Mortelmans (UAntwerpen), Julien Perrez (ULiège), Benedikt Szmrecsanyi (KU Leuven), Martina Temmerman (VUB), Johan van der Auwera (UAntwerpen), An Van linden (ULiège), Guido Vanden Wyngaerd (KU Leuven), Gudrun Vanderbauwhede (UMons)

CFP: CogLingDays8

The CogLing Days are the biennial conference of the Belgium Netherlands Cognitive Linguistics Association (www.benecla.com). The 8th CogLing Days will be held at the Université catholique de Louvain in Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, on December 13th and 14th 2018 (www.cogling2018.wordpress.com).

We welcome contributions reporting on recent research in the various strands of cognitive linguistics or other cognitively inspired usage-based approaches to language.

Abstracts must not exceed 500 words, including references, and should mention the main research question(s), methodology, data and (expected) results. Abstracts can be submitted for an oral presentation (20’ + discussion time) or a poster and will be reviewed anonymously. We also welcome theme session proposals. Please submit via Easychair
https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=cogling8. You will be required to paste your abstract in the text box and to upload a pdf of your abstract. Please indicate your preference for an oral presentation or a poster.
The conference languages are English, Dutch and French.

Proposals for theme sessions (max. 500 word description + (tentative) titles and names of participants) should be submitted by 15 April 2018 to cogling8@uclouvain.be. When the theme session is accepted, individual abstracts should also be submitted via Easychair by 15 May 2018.  If your abstract is part of a theme session, please add the theme session title to your paper title.

Submission deadline proposals for theme sessions: 15 April 2018

Submission deadline abstracts: 15 May 2018

Notification of acceptance: 2 July 2018

Contact: Cogling8@uclouvain.be Continue reading

CFP: Failing Identities: Identification and Resistance

20-21 September 2018
University of Liège, Belgium

This conference aims to scrutinize, clarify and elaborate upon the concept of identity, which ranks among the most (ab)used concepts in the humanities since the end of the 20th century.

The popularity of the concept is, first and foremost, to be situated in the aftermath of the linguistic turn, which led to identity being conceived of as the product of discursive interpellations. This theoretical reframing of the subject constitutes the theoretical basis of multiple strands of discourse theory and analysis, and of various types of (post)poststructuralist theory.

The pervasive presence of identity as an object of study is, however, and to an even greater degree, also explained by the postmodern critique of universality and the concomitant deconstruction of the universal subject as a fiction subservient to particular (masculine, white, western, heterosexual…) interests. It is precisely this critique that drives the various forms of progressive identity politics that are so conspicuously present today.

To put it simply and provocatively: where do we go from here? This fundamental question translates into a wide range of more specific questions, such as:

  • Is what (post)structuralism calls the decentred subject a mere passive recipient of discursive interpellations, or does it resist and, if so, in which way(s)? How should this resistance be understood – as an inability or rather as a refusal to accept discursive interpellations? As a rearticulation and ‘slanting’ of a given discourse? As a form of more or less subtle and agile negotiation with hegemonic pressures? As the articulation of a counterhegemonic discourse?
  • How paradoxical and/or ambivalent are identification processes? If a seemingly official and explicit refusal often hides a more fundamental implicit identification (‘I am no racist, but…’) and vice versa (‘We are determined to tackle tax evasion’), how do both levels interact with one another and what audiences are they intended for? How can identificatory acts and utterances be construed as positioning the subject within the conflictual and dialogic contexts from which they emerged?
  • How easy is it to cancel or replace identifications? Have ‘postmodern subjects’ really become fluid and endlessly malleable in a ‘liquid modernity’ (Zygmunt Bauman), or are they tough, inert and persistent? Do they have ‘hard kernels’ and, if so, what would be the nature of these? How important is the impact of discursive sedimentation on individual subjects, cultures and societies? How do deliberate or involuntary cancellations of identifications affect the subject? Are they emancipatory or destructive – or both?
  • Does the postmodern critique of the universal subject not in fact continue to refer to a universal horizon of equality and justice? Should this critique be maintained or should it give way to a dialectical vision of the opposition between the universal and the particular?
  • Are ‘progressive identity politics’ more needed than ever or are they at risk of becoming essentialist and unbearably reductionist stances?
  • Are ‘progressive identity politics’ genuinely progressive or do they allow the researchers involved to view themselves as ‘progressive’? What makes them superior to traditional, conservative identity politics? Do they hamper attempts to unite progressive groups and efforts, uniting only ‘deplorable  antiliberal, reactionary forces, as is argued by such varied authors as Eric Hobsbawm, Terry Eagleton, Slavoj Žižek, Vivek Chibber and Mark Lilla?
  • What are relevant methodological underpinnings of research on identity and identification? Which linguistic means can be observed to index identity (as one of their multiple functions), and how can we classify them meaningfully? For example, how can such phenomena as taboo expressions, metaphors, language varieties (e.g. sociolects and slang), language contact and learner languages enhance our understanding of identity and identification? What about language policy and (official and unofficial) puristic movements?

Proposals will be judged on their ability to address theoretical issues and methodological questions, or the latter’s application to concrete cases and corpora

Since the conference is interdisciplinary in nature, we welcome proposals from the fields of literary studies, linguistics, translation studies, cultural studies, communication studies, political studies, social sciences, philosophy and history.

Abstracts (in English or French) should not exceed 300 words and be submitted along with a brief biobibliographical note (100 words max.) by 1 March 2018 at the latest to the following address: letl@uliege.be. Participants will be notified by 1 May 2018.

Papers may be delivered in Dutch, English, French, German and Spanish, with discussions taking place in English and French.

Organizing committee (ULiège): Kim Andringa, Lieselotte Brems, Louis Gerrekens, Maxim Proesmans, Laurent Rasier, Erik Spinoy, Kris Steyaert, An Van linden, Patricia Willson
External: Ted Laros (Open Universiteit Nederland), Lieven Vandelanotte (UNamur)

Please check www.letl.uliege.be/cms/c_3141291/fr/letl-activites for up-to-date information.

19th International CALL Research Conference

Dear colleagues,

We hereby extend a cordial invitation to submit a proposal for our 19th International CALL Research Conference, which will be held in Bruges (Belgium) from 4 to 6 July 2018. The theme of the conference is CALL your Data.

You are invited to submit a proposal where you describe your past or current research and, more importantly, the challenges encountered and solutions found regarding the “Openness” of the data you make, use of and/or produce. Your submission should consist of a one page abstract (500 words). You should use the template provided. Deadline for submission of abstracts will be January 31st 2018.

Early-bird registration will be 340 EUR. Alex Boulton and Rose Luckin will be our keynote speakers. Updated details on the programme, venue, accommodation, registration and deadlines can be found on the conference website: www.call2018.org.

Looking forward to seeing you in Bruges,

The organizing committee.
Ann Aerts
Jozef Colpaert
Frederik Cornillie
Piet Desmet
Ine Windey

Using Corpora in Contrastive and Translation Studies (5th edition)

The Centre for English Corpus Linguistics of the University of Louvain (UCL) is organizing the fifth edition of the Using Corpora in Contrastive and Translation Studies conference series in Louvain-la-Neuve (Belgium) on 12-14 September, 2018.

UCCTS is a biennial international conference which was launched by Richard Xiao in 2008 to provide an international forum for the exploration of the theoretical and practical issues pertaining to the creation and use of corpora in contrastive and translation/interpreting studies. The 2018 edition will be dedicated to the memory of Richard, who initiated the conference series but sadly passed away in January 2016.

After almost 30 years of intensive corpus use in contrastive linguistics and translation studies, the conference aims to take stock of the advances that have been made in methodology, theory, analysis and applications, and think up new ways of moving corpus-based contrastive and translation studies forward. UCCTS2018 is meant to bring together researchers who collect, annotate, analyze corpora and/or use them to inform contrastive linguistics and translation theory and/or develop corpus-informed tools (in foreign language teaching, language testing and quality assessment, translation pedagogy, computer-aided/machine translation or other related NLP domains).

Conference websitehttps://uclouvain.be/en/research-institutes/ilc/cecl/uccts2018.html

The deadline of abstract submission is extended to  January 22nd.

Sylviane Granger & Marie-Aude Lefer

Conference Chairs

CFP: 39th International GERAS Conference

15-17 March 2018

University of Mons, Belgium

Diachronic dimensions in specialised varieties of English:

implications in communications, didactics and translation studies

As a rule, practitioners of English for Specific Purposes show little interest in diachrony and, particularly, in the past of specialised languages. Their main motivation stems from learners’ needs, and needs analyses generally place them in the present or near future rather than in the past. Conversely, a growing number of researchers in continental Europe regard specialised languages as enduring linguistic objects – e.g. specialised varieties of English (SVEs) such as medical or legal English – and exploring these SVEs’ diachronic dimensions plays an increasing part in their scientific interests. This conference invites researchers to examine the diachronic dimensions of specialised English and to explore their various facets.

One first group of questions may bear on the communicational stakes of the subject. Languages aptly serve specialised communication in synchronic conditions, but what are the impacts of diachronic distantiation on comprehension and interpretation? Learners frequently engage in documentary research and they consult texts that may belong in temporal settings lying outside their immediate learning time sphere. Do they have to be made aware of the evolutions in terms, discourse, genres, institutional reference, and of the influence of history on their specialised communities? These questions expand further if the history of SVEs comes into

consideration and if we wonder about their origins. Training learners to become erudite in specialised languages is clearly not an option; yet, totally ignoring the

diachronic dimension of SVEs may not be an adequate posture when it comes to training qualified teachers of English irrespective of their specialised domains.

A second set of questions flows from answers given to the first. If some scientific investment in diachrony makes sense for some SVEs, how can we design

learning/teaching strategies that meet the requirements of the “didactic transposition” put forward by Yves Chevallard (1985: 20)? The aim of the didactic transposition is to produce “knowledge for learners” from “scholars’ knowledge” and the challenge here is to introduce the diachronic dimension into the process. Motivation concerns are also a major issue if learners are invited to devote some time and effort to long-term aspects instead of engaging fully in hic and nunclanguage priorities.

The third group of interrogations concerns translation issues. Culture has long been a major object of research in translation studies (often contrasting “natural” with

“exotic” translations), but diachrony seems to have attracted limited interest. Yet, translators are often challenged by source elements that have changed in the course of time such as terminological evolutions like neologisms or changes in nomenclature; modifications in phraseology resulting from usage or imposed by competent authorities; or paradigmatic changes in the truth conditions of the world, as when one scientific theory is proved wrong and is replaced by another.

In translation studies, source-oriented translation and target-oriented translation only meet part of the translators’ dilemmas when they are confronted with diachrony. The source-oriented translator would simply keep the past elements of the source text and include them in the target text while the target-oriented translator would aim at adapting past elements to make them fit the present. Functionalist translation theories offer better strategies in these cases. Following the

skopos theory, every translation has a purpose. The source text has to be translated so as to make sense for addressees, their knowledge and their needs, in the target circumstances. In this theoretical framework, diachrony-dependent translation decisions are subject to the function of the target text. In that respect, Christiane Nord (1997) stresses that translators have to compare source texts and target texts in terms of addressees and of the medium employed, but also in terms of the place and time of reception. By comparing, translators may make translation decisions which largely determine the target text. Functionalists have duly addressed the issue of time difference between source and target texts, but diachrony is a transversal phenomenon in translation because it is inherent in linguistic evolutions, whether in languages for general or specialised purposes. In that context, it would be of interest to study the evolutions in the translation of neologisms, of theory-constitutive metaphorical terms – their evolutions are often marked by scientific discoveries in the course of time. Other relevant prospective questions may include the translation of specialised phraseologies where parallel corpus analyses highlight diachronic markers.



Chevallard, Yves. 1985. La transposition didactique : du savoir savant au savoir enseigné. Grenoble: La Pensée Sauvage.

Nord, Christiane. 1997. Translating as a Purposeful Activity: Functionalist Approaches Explained. Manchester, UK: St Jerome.


Submission format

Languages: French or English

Number of words: 300

EXTENDED Deadline: 20 January 2018

Forward to: christine.michaux@umons.ac.bem.memet@orange.fr



Light verb constructions in Germanic languages

17-18 November 2017, Université Saint-Louis, Bruxelles

Deadline extension for submission of abstracts: 30 July 2017

Aims and scope

The German term “Funktionsverbgefüge” (‘light verb construction’; LVC) designates a combination of a noun phrase (with or without a preposition) with a light verb. The nominal and the verbal constituents build a semantic unit, e.g. German zur Entscheidung kommen, in Verbindung setzen, English to make a decision, to take a look and Dutch in aanmerking komen, ter beschikking staan. LVCs constitute an interesting research topic which can be studied from different perspectives. They can express different aspectual dimensions (causative, durative, inchoative, etc.), are more or less suitable for passivization and sometimes fill a semantic gap. Interesting research issues include their definition, the delimitation criteria – for instance between collocations and LVCs – as well as the typology of their constituents (preposition, article, nominal constituent and light verb). LVCs are also in competition with simple verbs and the question arises whether both ways of expression are interchangeable and semantically identical. From a more applied perspective, LVCs constitute a great challenge for foreign language learners. More specifically, the selection of a specific light verb, which can be among others a posture or placement verb like German stehen, setzen, versetzen, etc., is far from easy for learners. In spite of similarities between Germanic languages like German, Dutch and English, there are several differences in the formation and the use of these constructions. This makes a comparison of LVCs within Germanic and other languages another interesting issue.

The aim of this conference is to bring together researchers who are interested in the study of LVCs from different perspectives. We welcome submissions dealing with issues such as the following (but not exclusively):

  • criteria for the delimitation between LVCs and collocations
  • the syntactic structure of LVCs/Typology of their constituents
  • posture and placement verbs in LVCs
  • the semantics of prepositions in LVCs
  • LVCs vs. simple verbs
  • aspectual differences
  • comparison of LVCs between Germanic languages and/or other languages

Abstract submission 

Submissions are welcome for 25-minute oral presentations (including 5 minutes for questions) and posters. Conference languages: German and English. Abstracts of no more than 500 words (+ references) can be sent by email to sabine.deknop@usaintlouis.be until 30 July 2017.

Please include the following information in the main body of your email: author’s name, affiliation, email address, presentation title and preferred mode of presentation (oral presentation or poster). Notification of acceptance will be sent on 20 August 2017. Continue reading

Morphology Days 2017 – First Call for Papers

November 23-24, 2017

Université catholique de Louvain (Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium)

Morphology Days is a (nearly) biennial international meeting which deals with morphology within different frameworks and in various perspectives. Previous successful editions of this conference have taken place in Leuven (2015), Leeuwarden (2013), Leiden (2012), Nijmegen (2011), Luik (2009) and Amsterdam (2007).

The next edition of the conference will take place at the Université catholique de Louvain (Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium) on November 23-24, 2017.

We invite papers dealing with issues in morphology for a presentation in the main sessions of the conference.

Keynote speakers
Hélène Giraudo (Université de Toulouse)
Laura Michaelis (University of Colorado at Boulder)
Freek Van de Velde (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven)

Abstract submission
We invite abstracts in English (500 words maximum, excluding bibliography). Each abstract will be reviewed anonymously by the scientific committee.
Website: https://morphologydays2017.wordpress.com/
Abstract submission: https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=md2017

Important dates
Deadline for abstract submission: June 1, 2017
Notification of decision: September 1, 2017
Program available: September 15, 2017

Organizing Committee
Philippe Hiligsmann (Université catholique de Louvain)
Kristel Van Goethem (F.R.S.- FNRS & Université catholique de Louvain)
Laurent Rasier (Université de Liège)
Nikos Koutsoukos (Université catholique de Louvain)
Isa Hendrikx (Université catholique de Louvain)
Camille Spinhayer (F.R.S.- FNRS & Université catholique de Louvain)

Scientific committee
Dany Amiot (Université de Lille)
Jenny Audring (Universiteit Leiden)
Geert Booij (Universiteit Leiden)
Marie-Aude Lefer (Université catholique de Louvain)
Torsten Leuschner (Universiteit Gent)
Daniela Marzo (Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München)
Matthias Hüning (Freie Universität Berlin)
Joachim Sabel (Université catholique de Louvain)
Barbara Schlücker (Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn)
Ton van der Wouden (Meertens Instituut & Leiden University)

Kristel Van Goethem: kristel.vangoethem@uclouvain.be