BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:OpenCms 20.0.18
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:Europe/Berlin
X-LIC-LOCATION:Europe/Berlin
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:+0100
TZOFFSETTO:+0200
TZNAME:CEST
DTSTART:19700329T020000
RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYDAY=-1SU;BYMONTH=3
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0200
TZOFFSETTO:+0100
TZNAME:CET
DTSTART:19701025T030000
RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYDAY=-1SU;BYMONTH=10
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE				
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTAMP:20130227T173300
UID:4cf647a6-4a5e-11e9-ac0d-000e0c3db68b
SUMMARY:P-Workshop 2012
DESCRIPTION:\n   \n\nWorkshop description\n\nGermanic languages have productive mechanisms that form complex verbsout of simple verbs and\nparticles or prefixes; and many of thoseparticles and prefixes apparently correspond to\nprepositions(so-called p-elements). Particle- and prefix-verb formation involvingp-elements has\nbeen subject to extensive debates in the syntacticliterature and, more recently, also in\nsemantics.From a semantic perspective, the ways in which p-elements combine withverbs show a lot of\nvariation, and one of the tasks of a theory of thesyntax and semantics of p-verbs is to identify\nthese differentpatterns. A further issue is that both p-elements and the verbs thatthey combine\nwith are typically ambiguous or polysemous whenconsidered on their own. More often than not these\nambiguitiesdisappear when p-element and verb combine: the combining process willeliminate all but\none of the different meanings of the elements thatare being combined. So a second task for an\naccount of p-verbs is toexplain how this kind of filtering of unwanted readings functions. Athird\nissue is that the formation of p-verbs is (like word formationgenerally) only 'semi-productive': So\na third task for theories ofp-verbs is to identify the (semi-)productive combination patternswithin\na wide range of data 'contaminated' by countlessidiosyncrasies.\nDealing with these tasks presupposes answers to the followingquestions:\n\nHow to represent the basic constituents of p-verb constructions?\n\nIn the work of Svenonius (2003, and subsequent work) P's with the samesemantic content can\nappear both as heads of prepositional phrases andas particles; but because PP heads and particles\nplay different rolesin the syntactic structures of which they are part, the meanings theyshare make\ndifferent contributions to the semantics of thosestructures (crucial to this account is Svenonius'\nsplit-P hypothesis;see also Van Riemsdijk 1991). Investigations in the same spirit havebeen\nundertaken in the framework of Ramchand (2008), Ramchand andSvenonius (2002), and Romanova (2007)\nfor Russian prefix verbs.\nAll these studies explicitly or implicitly raise the question:\n\nTo what extent can/must semantic differences be analyzed in terms of structural differences\nthat are part of syntax?\n\nThis question is also a topic of debate within Distributed Morphology(DM; Halle/Marantz 1993,\nMarantz 2006). Some of the work within DMseems motivated by the implicit assumption that the\nsemantics of verbsand their projections is fully determined by their internal syntacticstructure\nand the ('encyclopaedic') semantics of their roots (Borer2005).\nThere are however also a number of phenomena that are morespecifically connected to p-verbs:\n\nSometimes the argument structures of p-verbs differ from those of their base verbs.\nSometimes the same p-element and base verb can be combined into p-verbs with distinct argument\nstructures. In some such cases the p-verbs differ in meaning, in others they do not.\nAlso, in some such cases the p-verbs differ in their morpho-phonetic properties.\n\nFurther topics of interest for the workshop arise from across-linguistic perspective: For\ninstance, Germanic and Slavic languages appear to differ in thatprefixation in the latter has an\n(ineradicable) impact on aspect. InPolish, and also in other Slavic languages, prefix verbs\ntypicallydiffer from their base verbs in that the latter express imperfectiveaspect and the former\nperfective aspect (Mylarczyk2004). Nevertheless, although Polish has prefixes that make a\npurelyaspectual contribution to the semantics of the prefix verbs containingthem, there are others\nthat contribute to the verbs containing themall or some of the semantics they share with the\ncorrespondingprepositions. The general question suggested by such cross-linguisticcomparisons is to\nwhat extent prefixation operations in differentlanguages follow universal principles and to what\nextent thoseprinciples are language-specific.   \n\nInvited speakers (in alphabetical order)\n\nMarcel den Dikken (City University of New York):\n \n"Preposition doubling\nin Flemish and its implications for the syntax of Dutch PPs"\nJaume Mateu (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona):\n \n"Strong and weak P-verb\nconstructions"\nAndrew McIntyre (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin):\n \n"Particle incorporation\nin English double object constructions, nominalisations and elsewhere"\nGillian Ramchand (Universitetet i Tromsø):\n \n"On the Categories V and\nP: Anatomy of a Love Affair"\nPeter Svenonius (Universitetet i Tromsø):\n \n"Structural and\nfeatural distinctions between Germanic and Slavic prefixes"\nJoost Zwarts (Universiteit Utrecht):\n \n"The 'space' of\nP"\n  \n\nAccepted talks (in alphabetical order)\n\nJulia Adler:\n \n"How a directional particle\ngives rise to possessive semantics"\nBerit Gehrke and Marika Lekakou:\n \n"In the absence of\nP"\nThomas McFadden:\n \n"The syntax of preverbal\nge- in Old English"\nMarina Pantcheva:\n \n"Deriving doubling,\nnon-doubling and argument-changing prefixes"\nStefano Quaglia:\n \n"On the difference\nbetween Italian and Germanic spatial particles"\nJuan Romeu:\n \n"Verbal Prefixes are not\nPs"\nIndaiá de Santana Bassani:\n \n"Parasynthetic Prefix\nVerbs of Brazilian Portuguese: evidence for locality effects in morphosyntactic structure"\n(abstract)\nInna Tolskaya:\n \n"Verbal prefixes in\nRussian: conceptual structure versus syntax"\n  \n\nScientific committee (in alphabetical order)\n\nArtemis Alexiadou\nBoris Haselbach\nHans Kamp\nMarcel Pitteroff\nAntje Roßdeutscher\nFlorian Schäfer\n  \n\nProgram\n\n\nclick here\n\nThe workshop is organized by the projects B1, B4, and B6 with in theDFG-funded \nSFB 732 \nIncremental Specification in Context at University of Stuttgart.
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Berlin;VALUE=DATE:20120713
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Berlin;VALUE=DATE:20120715
LOCATION:Universität Stuttgart, Building K1, Campus Stadtmitte, , Keplerstraße 11, 70174 Stuttgart, Deutschland 
URL;VALUE=URI:https://www.ims.uni-stuttgart.de/institut/aktuelles/veranstaltung/P-Workshop-2012/
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR