LINGUIST List 15.3158

Wed Nov 10 2004

Calls: Syntax/Semantics

Editor for this issue: Amy Wronkowicz <>

As a matter of policy, LINGUIST discourages the use of abbreviations or acronyms in conference announcements unless they are explained in the text. To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at


        1.    Orin Percus, Snippets

Message 1: Snippets

Date: 08-Nov-2004
From: Orin Percus <>
Subject: Snippets

Full Title: Snippets

Linguistic Field(s): Syntax

Call Deadline: 15-Nov-2004


The submission deadline for the next posting of the syntax/semantics
minijournal SNIPPETS has been extended to

November 15, 2004

As usual, submissions are to be sent to the address

Some relevant excerpts from the SNIPPETS editorial statement follow.
Further details can be found at the website
( together with all published issues.
The contents of the most recent issue are:

1. Daniel Altshuler - Relative head surgery
2. Bridget Copley - So-called epistemic should
3. Bill Haddican - Affirmation and weak islands
4. Uli Sauerland - 'A team', definitely
5. Benjamin Spector - Indefinites in subject position are positive polarity
6. Hidekazu Tanaka - Not so tough: a response to Harley
7. Tohru Uchiumi - A peculiar restriction on the long-distance 'anaphor'
zibun in Japanese
8. Roberto Zamparelli - Every two days

Excerpts from the SNIPPETS Editorial Statement:

1. Purpose

The aim of Snippets is to publish specific remarks that motivate research
or that make theoretical points germane to current work. The ideal
contribution is the ideal footnote: a side remark that taken on its own is
not worth lengthy development but that needs to be said.

2. Content

We will publish notes that contribute to the study of syntax and semantics
in generative grammar. The notes are to be brief, self-contained and
explicit. They may do any of the following things:

- point out an empirical phenomenon that goes against accepted
generalizations or that shows that some aspect of a theory is problematic;
- point out unnoticed minimal pairs that fall outside the scope of any
existing theory;
- point out an empirical phenomenon that confirms the predictions of a
theory in an area where the theory has not been tested;
- explicitly describe technical inconsistencies in a theory or in a set of
frequently adopted assumptions;
- explicitly describe unnoticed assumptions that underlie a theory or
assumptions that a theory needs to be supplemented with in order to make
desired predictions;
- call attention to little-known or forgotten literature in which issues of
immediate relevance are discussed.

We also encourage submissions that connect psycholinguistic data to
theoretical issues. A proposal for a pilot experiment in language
acquisition or language processing could make for an excellent snippet.

3. Submission details

We will accept electronic submissions at the address
Electronic submissions may take the form of (a) the text of an e-mail
message, or (b) an attached file. The attached file should be a simple text
file, a Word file (Mac or Windows), or a Rich Text Format (RTF) file. All
submissions must state the name and affiliation of the author(s), and a
(postal or electronic) return address. Submissions are to be a maximum of
500 words (including examples), with an additional half page allowed for
diagrams, tables and references. Given that we envision the submissions
themselves as footnotes, the submissions may not contain footnotes of their
own. The ideal submission is one paragraph; a submission of five lines is
perfectly acceptable. We will not consider abstracts.

4. Editorial policy

Submissions will be reviewed by our editorial board, and review will be
name-blind both ways. While we guarantee a response within 3 months of the
submission deadline, we will only provide a yes/no response to the
submitter. We will not request revisions (barring exceptional cases). We
allow resubmission (once) of the same piece.

Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue