[徵稿] ImpArg: Syntax and Semantics of Implicit Arguments
https://linguistlist.org/issues/37/1167/
Full Title: Syntax and Semantics of Implicit Arguments
Short Title: ImpArg
Date: 28-Sep-2026 - 29-Sep-2026
Location: Graz, Austria
Web Site: https://sites.google.com/view/imparg-graz/
Linguistic Field(s): Semantics; Syntax
Call Deadline: 01-May-2026
Call for Papers:
Implicit arguments – participants in an event or relation that are not
overtly realized but are nonetheless interpreted and syntactically active –
pose persistent challenges for theories of argument structure, linking, and
the syntax-semantics interface. Canonical examples include, among others, the
unexpressed external argument of passives (The ship was sunk), null internal
arguments of certain transitive verbs (Tom already ate), and unsaturated
thematic roles in deverbal nominals and adjectives (the destruction, Jane is
proud). Such cases raise important questions about how arguments are licensed,
represented, and interpreted in the absence of phonological realization, in
general, as well as about how implicit arguments, in particular, relate to
other covert categories such as PRO, pro, movement traces/copies and ellipsis
sites.
Theoretical approaches to implicit arguments diverge widely. While some
consider them to be unsaturated thematic roles (Williams 1985, Grimshaw 1990)
or existentially closed in the lexical semantics of the predicate without
being represented in the syntax (Partee 1989, Lasersohn 1997), more recent
research has shown that implicit arguments crucially participate in
grammatical dependencies (Williams 2015, Bhatt & Pancheva 2017, Collins 2024).
Some of this work emphasizes the role of functional structure, proposing that
implicit arguments – for instance, implicit external arguments of passives
– are introduced by heads such as Voice rather than by the verb itself (
Kratzer 1996; Legate 2014; Alexiadou, Anagnostopoulou & Schäfer 2015; Collins
2024).
A further complication is that implicit arguments do not appear to form a
uniform class. Their availability and properties vary across predicate types (
verbs, adjectives, nouns) and constructions (passives, middles, impersonals,
nominalizations), they differ in their interpretive possibilities, including
existential, generic, and definite readings (Condoravdi & Gawron 1996;
Bruening 2021, 2024; Collins 2024) and may have different behavior across
languages (Rizzi 1986). These differences raise the question of whether “
implicit argument” names a single grammatical phenomenon or a family of
related ones (Bhatt & Pancheva 2017; Landau 2010) and how they should be
accounted for.
This workshop aims to bring together work from syntax, semantics, and their
interface to reassess the status of implicit arguments among covert categories
in grammar. By focusing on their distribution, grammatical activity/
representation, interpretation, and formal analysis, the workshop aims to
clarify what implicit arguments reveal about argument structure, the division
of labor between syntax and semantics, and the architecture of grammar in
general.
We invite contributions that address the following research questions and
possibly further related topics.
1. Where do implicit arguments appear?
Which (sub)classes of predicates (verbs, adjectives, nouns) and which
constructions (e.g. passives, impersonals, middles, nominalizations) license
implicit arguments? How construction-specific or predicate-specific is their
availability?
2. How many types of implicit arguments are there?
Should we distinguish different types of implicit arguments, such as implicit
external arguments of passives, null internal arguments of verbs, or implicit
arguments in nominals and adjectives? How do these types correlate with
differences in interpretation (existential, definite, generic) and with other
covert categories in the grammar?
3. What are the syntactic and semantic properties of implicit arguments?
What diagnostics distinguish implicit arguments from other covert elements
such as pro, PRO, or movement traces/copies? Are implicit arguments
syntactically represented, or are they only semantically active? Bhatt &
Pancheva (2017) argue that they are syntactically active but it is not clear
whether they are also syntactically represented. How can we test their
syntactic representation? How do tests involving control, anaphora,
modification or discourse reference bear on this question?
4. How should implicit arguments be analyzed?
How should implicit arguments be modeled formally in syntax and semantics? How
are they licensed and how are they interpreted? Can they be treated as pro or
PRO, ellipsis, as part of lexical argument structure, or as introduced by
functional heads? What are the consequences of different analyses for theories
of argument structure and the syntax-semantics interface?
Invited Speakers:
Maia Duguine (CNRS-IKER)
Monica-Alexandrina Irimia (University of Modena and Reggio Emilia)
Florian Schäfer (Humboldt University, Berlin)
Important Dates:
Deadline for abstract submission: May 1, 2026
Notification of acceptance: June 15, 2026
Program available: June 30, 2026
Registration from: June 30, 2026
Workshop dates: September 28-29, 2026
This workshop aims to bring together work from syntax, semantics, and their
interface to reassess the status of implicit arguments among covert categories
in grammar. By focusing on their distribution, grammatical activity/
representation, interpretation, and formal analysis, the workshop aims to
clarify what implicit arguments reveal about argument structure, the division
of labor between syntax and semantics, and the architecture of grammar in
general.
Each talk will be allotted 45 minutes (30 minutes for presentation and 15
minutes for discussion). Abstracts should be anonymous and should not exceed 2
pages in length (A4 or letter-size), in 12pt font, with 1-inch/2.5-cm margins
, including examples and references. The deadline for submissions is May 1,
2026, 23:59 CEST.
Please submit your abstracts through OpenReview (
https://openreview.net/group?id=ImpArg/2026/Workshop ) Note that new profiles
created on OpenReview without an institutional email will go through a
moderation process that can take up to two weeks.
Organizers:
Zi Huang (U. Graz)
Gianina Iordchioaia (U. Graz)
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 111.255.124.32 (臺灣)
※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/Linguistics/M.1774799849.A.AD1.html
Linguistics 近期熱門文章
PTT職涯區 即時熱門文章
52
127