Roots: Word formation from the perspective of “core lexical elements”

Across frameworks, a certain amount of consensus has emerged that word formation involves a ‘core lexical element’ (also called ‘root’) in combination with a structural template. The former part provides the idiosyncratic aspects of word meaning, while the latter provides the grammatically relevant facets of word meaning.
    Despite this basic agreement, no consensus exists concerning the nature of roots and their exact role in word formation processes. In the recent literature, we find at least two understandings of the notion ‘root’ and of the term ‘grammatically relevant facets of meaning’. For instance, for researchers working within Distributed Morphology or exo-skeletal approaches, the root is seen as the minimal invariable core which words share once all functional formatives have been abstracted away. Roots do not determine the structures in which they appear, and functional structure is seen as the bearer of meaning specification. Thus grammatically relevant facets of meaning are the structurally relevant aspects. On the other hand, for researchers such as Levin & Rappaport Hovav, the root is the core of word meaning in that its semantics determine the range of event structures it can combine with.

    This workshop aims at bringing together researchers working in different frameworks to discuss roots and their interaction with grammatical formatives. Possible questions for discussion include the following:       
      
    Do roots have ontological types which constrain the structures they might be associated with? As not all roots can occur in all contexts, how can we restrict root insertion? Do we need diacritics on roots in order to determine this, i.e. diacritics that determine class membership, as in e.g. Embick & Halle (2005)?
    How much meaning is included in the root in isolation: no meaning at all, as argued by Acquaviva (2007), very underspecified aspects of meaning, as stated in Marantz (2001) and Arad (2003), fully specified meaning including argument structure licensing, as in Levin & Rappaport Hovav (2005) and Doron (2003)?
    If roots have meaning, where is this assigned? In addition, where is root phonology assigned? When are roots inserted in the structure, early as in Embick (2000) and Harley (2006) or late as in (Marantz 1997)? Furthermore, is non-compositional meaning only associated with the roots themselves or can it involve bigger chunks of structure as well, as argued by Marantz (2003), Borer (2008), Alexiadou (2008), Harley (2008)?   
    Turning to the question of argument licensing, if the root determines argument structure, does it do so on its own or via the mediation of functional structure? Related to this question is the issue of whether external and internal arguments are introduced in a similar or in a distinct fashion.
    Finally, it has been suggested that languages differ as to the number of roots they have for one particular class (e.g. English has many manner of motion roots, while the Romance languages have much fewer, Levin & Rappaport Hovav 2005: 240). What is then the cross-linguistically stable semantic core? How does the root inventory of a language interact with its functional vocabulary/event template in order to yield variation across languages?

Abstract submission:

Abstracts are invited for 40 minute talks (30'+10') relevant to the conference theme. Submissions are limited to one single-authored and one joint-authored abstract.

The abstracts should be sent by e-mail to: roots.workshop@googlemail.com
Please include the word ABSTRACT in the subject line of the e-mail.
In the body of the message, please include the names of the author(s), affiliation(s), abstract title and an e-mail address.

Abstracts should take the form of a PDF document. Abstracts should be limited to two pages (11pt font size) and a third page containing examples and references. Abstracts should be anonymous.

SUBMISSION DEADLINE: 15 March 2009

Notification of Acceptance: ca. 1 April 2009