Dear colleagues,
on Wednesday, December 11, we will host a workshop on Non-Transformational approaches to syntax at the Eurasian Congress of linguists, which is about to commence in Moscow. It is a spiritual successor to the inaugural Moscow LFG Meeting we organized back in April. We’d be delighted if you are able to attend! For the Zoom link, please send an email to the organizers at moscow.lfg.meeting@gmail.com .
We apologize for the late posting!
15:00–15:15 *UTC+3* Opening Remarks
15:15–16:00 Ash Asudeh (University of Rochester). *Distributed Morphology without Movement, Fusional Morphology without Paradigms* In this talk, I present the theory called Lexical-Realizational Functional Grammar, a form of Distributed Morphology built around an LFG syntax. The theory has no movement (neither phrasal nor head), no zero morphs, and no paradigms. I show its application to complex phenomena in English, Ingush, Ojibwe, and Latin.
16:00–16:30 Danil Alekseev (Lomonosov MSU / Institute of Linguistics RAS). *Minimal Phrase Structure and Discourse Configurationality* Minimal Phrase Structure (MPS) is an alternative model of phrase structure proposed for LFG in (Lovestrand, Lowe 2017; Lowe, Lovestrand 2020). While it has been previously successfully applied to English and Barayin (< Chadic) by (Lovestrand 2023), this work seeks to further expand the empirical coverage of the model by testing its applicability to Ossetic (< Iranian < Indo-European) and other discourse configurational languages. A new variant of MPS that allows to capture more diverse phrase structure configurations is also proposed.
16:30–16:45 Coffee Break
16:45–17:15 Oleg Belyaev (Lomonosov MSU / Institute of Linguistics RAS). *Capturing Bartangi clause structure in LFG* The overall clause structure of Bartangi (Shugni-Roshani > Iranian) resembles that of other Iranian languages, including those of the Pamir group (e.g. Shughni, Parker 2023). The internal and final positions of Iranian conjunctions have not been in the focus of any theoretical discussion that I am aware of, even in mainstream generative grammar. For LFG, it merits a systematic description due to the issues it raises with respect to the interplay between discourse configurationality and grammatical-function configurationality (see Snijders 2015), especially in light of broadly similar systems described both for related languages such as Ossetic (Belyaev 2014, 2022) and for typologically similar languages such as Hungarian (Payne & Chisarik 2000; Laczkó 2014).
17:15–17:45 Timofei Dedov (Higher School of Economics). *Reciprocals in Abaza* There are many different ways of expressing reciprocal relations in the Abaza language: reciprocal prefix -aba-, reciprocal pronoun adjv-adjv, combination of a reciprocal prefix -a-/-aj- with a comitative prefix -ts-. This work is dedicated to the mechanism of expressing reciprocity by -aba- prefix, but adjv- adjv will also be briefly discussed.
17:45–18:15 Natalia Serdobolskaya (Institute of Linguistics RAS), Anna Osipova (Lomonosov MSU / Institute of Linguistics RAS) *Genitive Modifiers in Beserman Udmurt* In our talk, we aim to discuss some empirical puzzles posed by possessive constructions of Beserman Udmurt (Permic < Uralic). In this language, the possessor (in a broad sense) is encoded with the genitive case, whereas the possessum typically bears the agreeing possessive suffix, cf. (1). Although the existence of genitive modifiers with different syntactic status was proposed for different Finno-Ugric languages (Jokinen 1991, Christen 2001; Pleshak 2018; Pleshak, Kholodilova 2023), this question in many respects remains open for Beserman Udmurt.