From Lobke.Ghesquiere at arts.kuleuven.be Mon Nov 2 16:35:12 2009 From: Lobke.Ghesquiere at arts.kuleuven.be (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Lobke_Ghesqui=E8re?=) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 17:35:12 +0100 Subject: Call for papers: Workshop: 'Multiple source constructions in language change' Message-ID: Call for papers: Workshop: 'Multiple source constructions in language change' The 43rd annual Meeting of Societas Linguistica Europaea Vilnius University, Lithuania, 2-5 September 2010 http://www.flf.vu.lt/sle2010/ Workshop proposal In recent work on grammaticalization and language change in general, it has often been stressed that change does not affect individual lexemes, but entire constructions (see Bybee et al. 1994: 11; Croft 2000:62, 156, 163; Heine 2003: 575; Bybee 2003: 602-3, 2007; Traugott 2007). However, although most case studies on diachronic language change now recognize the importance of the source construction as a whole, they generally focus on just one such construction, drawing gradual, yet straight lines from one particular source construction to one specific syntagm. Using the metaphor proposed in Croft (2000: 32-37), constructions form diachronic lineages as they are replicated in usage, and change is typically conceived of as occurring within a lineage through altered replication. Recent studies, however, demonstrate that innovations in language change may derive not just from one, but from different sources at once. That is, change often seems to involve some interaction between lineages or between the branches of a lineage. Multiplicity of source constructions can be witnessed on two levels. On the macro-level, the involvement of multiple source constructions entails a merger of clearly distinct lineages. One linguistic item or construction can then be traced back to two independent items or constructions, each with its own prior history. Several types of merger can be discerned, which are however not mutually exclusive: · Syntactic blends ('intraference' in Croft 2000): the formal and functional features of different lineages are recombined into a new construction. For example, the Lunda passive has been argued to combine two source constructions, a left-dislocated object construction and an impersonal construction (Givón & Kawasha 2006). The history of English gerunds and present participles seems to be a protracted series of mergers, with exchange of formal, semantic and distributional features (Fanego 1998; Miller 2000), to the point that the two clause types are now believed to have merged completely (Huddleston & Pullum 2002). · Contact-induced change ('interference' in Croft 2000): the function of a foreign construction is merged with a 'home-bred' form. Examples are the use of the locative preposition bei instead of von to mark the agent of passives in Pennsylvania Dutch under the influence of English (Heine & Kuteva 2003: 538), or the emergence of a periphrastic perfect in Silesian Polish, calqued on the German perfect (Croft 2000: 146). · Two lineages produce paradigmatic alternates in a single construction. Here lineages merge on a functional level, but their different forms are retained and integrated in a new paradigm. The clearest case is morphological suppletion, as in English go/went or Classical Greek trekh-/dram- 'run'. However, the phenomenon also occurs in syntax, as illustrated by the alternation of Dutch hebben/zijn or German haben/sein as perfect auxiliaries. As is well known, the choice for one auxiliary or the other depends on the semantics of the verb: transitives and unergatives take hebben/haben; unaccusatives take zijn/sein. Though currently functioning as alternates within a single grammatical category, the hebben/haben-perfect and the zijn/sein-perfect can be traced back to different source constructions (Van der Wal 1992:152-153). · A constructional slot attracts new items: it has been proposed that when functional domains recruit new items through grammaticalization, this may in part be due to analogical attraction by a more abstract syntactic construction (Fischer 2007). This seems particularly plausible when, in the extreme case, an abstract slot recruits productively from a single source domain. For instance, the English evidential be-Ved-to-V-construction has become productive for verbs of perception, communication and cognition (Noël 2001). But the issue is more complicated when items from different source domains are involved. Prepositions, for instance, may be derived from very different sources yet converge on a single new category, as illustrated by German statt and wegen, deriving from nominal constructions, as opposed to während, deriving from a participle (Kluge 2002). On the micro-level, innovation can take place within what is historically a single lineage, but under the influence of different uses of the same item. · In lexical semantics, Geeraerts (1997) proposes that two senses of a polysemous lexical item may conspire to produce a third. · The same seems to happen in grammar. New uses of a grammatical or grammaticalizing item may be triggered by pragmatic implicatures arising (seemingly?) independently in a number of its collocations. For example, the aspectual meanings of the English phrasal verb particle out arose in several specific collocations at once (De Smet forthc.). The development of the emphasizing meaning of particular was influenced by two other sense strains of the adjective - a descriptive and a determining one - each associated with its own specific collocational set. (Ghesquière 2009). · The most dramatic cases are certain examples of degrammaticalization. For example, Fischer (2000) has argued that, long after it had been reanalysed as an infinitive marker, English to has developed back in the direction of the preposition to. The recurrent involvement of multiple source constructions in language change raises a number of questions, from methodological/descriptive to theoretical: 1. How do we prove that different source constructions have a genuine impact? Clearly, mere resemblance of constructions does not necessarily imply that they actually interact as sources of an innovation. 2. How should we typologize the various changes involving multiple source constructions? For a start, involvement of multiple sources may be more likely in some domains of grammar than others (semantics, morphology, syntax) and is certainly more conspicuous in some cases than in others (macro-level vs. micro-level). It is not entirely clear, then, whether in all cases we are dealing with a similar phenomenon, triggered by fundamentally similar mechanisms. 3. How common is the involvement of multiple source constructions in language change? It is possible that the involvement of multiple source constructions is a significant catalyst for change, which could even imply that 'uncontaminated' lineage-internal changes form the exception. Alternatively, the involvement of multiple sources could be merely apparent or accidental and have no great impact on change. 4. How can developments involving multiple source constructions be modelled in a theory of grammar and language change? Especially if change canonically involves multiple sources, this has implications for how constructions are represented in speakers' minds and how language change takes place (Joseph 1992). Proper theoretical modelling of different changes is also necessary to determine to what extent multiplicity of source constructions in change is a homogeneous phenomenon. We invite papers that address one or more of the above questions, to be presented in a one-day workshop, bringing together scholars interested in language change, from the domains of grammar, grammaticalization, morphology and typology. Particularly welcome are papers that are based on corpus and/or historical data and that aim to contribute to existing theorizing. Confirmed key note speaker: Brian Joseph Venue: The workshop is to be held at the 43rd annual meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europeae in Vilnius, September 2-5 (http://www.flf.vu.lt/sle2010/). Timeline: We ask potential participants to send us their provisional titles and short descriptions no later than November 12, so as to allow us to submit a workshop programme, including a preliminary list of participants and a short description of their topics, to the SLE Scientific Committee. Contributors will be notified if the workshop is accepted by December 15. Abstracts should then be submitted electronically via the SLE website by January 1. Contact: Lobke.Ghesquiere at arts.kuleuven.be Workshop conveners: Freek Van de Velde, Lobke Ghesquière, Hendrik De Smet References Bybee, J., R. Perkins & W. Pagliuca (1994). The evolution of grammar. Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bybee, J. (2003). Mechanisms of change in grammaticalization. The role of frequency. In: Joseph, B.D. & R.D. Janda (eds.). The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. 602-623. Bybee, J. (2007). Historical Linguistics. In: Geeraerts, D. & H. Cuyckens (eds.) The handbook of cognitive linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 945-987. Croft, W. (2000). Explaining language change. An evolutionary approach. Harlow: Longman. De Smet, H. (forthc.). Grammatical interference. Subject marker for and phrasal verb particle out. In: Traugott, E. & G. Trousdale (eds). Gradualness, gradience and grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Fanego, T. (1998). Developments in argument linking in early Modern English gerund phrases. English Language and Linguistics 2: 87-119. Fischer, O. (2000). Grammaticalisation: unidirectional, non-reversible? The case of to before the infinitive in English. In: Fischer, O., A. Rosenbach & D. Stein (eds.). Pathways of change. Grammaticalization in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 149-169. Fischer, O. (2007). Approaches to morphosyntactic change from a functional and formal perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Geeraerts, D. (1997). Diachronic prototype semantics. A contribution to historical lexicology. Oxford: Clarendon Press Ghesquière, L. (2009). (Inter)subjectification and structural movement in the English NP. The adjectives of specificity. Folia Linguistica 43 (2): 311-343. Givón, T. & B. Kawasha. (2006). Indiscrete grammatical relations. The Lunda passive. In: Tsunoda, T. & T. Kageyama (eds.). Voice and Grammatical Relations. In Honor of Masayoshi Shibatani (Typology Studies in Language 65). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 15-41. Heine, B. (2003). Grammaticalization. In: Joseph, B.D. & R.D. Janda (eds.). The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. 575-601. Heine, B. & T. Kuteva (2003). "On contact-induced grammaticalization". Studies in Language 27:529-572. Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambrige: Cambridge University Press. Joseph, B.D. (1992). Diachronic explanation. Putting the speaker back into the picture. In: Davis, G.W. & G.K. Iverson (eds.). Explanations in historical linguistics. John Benjamins. 123-144. Kluge, F. (2002). Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. Berlin: De Gruyter. Miller, G.D. (2002). Nonfinite structures in theory and change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Noël, D. (2001). The passive matrices of English infinitival complement clauses. Evidentials on the road to auxiliarihood? Studies in Language 25: 255-296. Traugott, E. (2007). The concepts of constructional mismatch and type-shifting from the perspective of grammaticalization. Cognitive Linguistics 18: 523-557. Van der Wal, M. (i.c.w. C. van Bree) (1992). Geschiedenis van het Nederlands. Utrecht: Spectrum. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l From johncharles.smith at stcatz.ox.ac.uk Tue Nov 3 10:21:44 2009 From: johncharles.smith at stcatz.ox.ac.uk (Johncharles Smith) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 10:21:44 +0000 Subject: Conference announcement -- SLE 2010 Message-ID: (Apologies for cross-postings) FIRST CALL FOR PAPERS 43rd Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea 2-5 September 2010 Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania http://www.societaslinguistica.eu/ The Societas Linguistica Europaea and the Vilnius Local Organizing Committee invite you to submit workshop, poster and paper proposals for the next annual SLE meeting. SLE meetings give a forum to high-quality scientific research from all (sub)domains of linguistics. Every year local organizers pay special attention to one specific topic. Though the next annual meeting particularly welcomes papers on “Language contact: at the crossroads of disciplines and frameworks”, workshops, posters and individual papers are invited on topics belonging to all fields of linguistics. PLENARY SPEAKERS Bas Aarts (London) Balthasar Bickel (Leipzig) Hubert Cuyckens (Leuven) Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (Stockholm) Tania Kuteva (Duesseldorf) Vladimir Plungian (Moscow) LOCAL ORGANIZING COMMITTEE Aurelija Usoniene (Chair) Antanas Smetona Jolanta Sinkuniene (Secretary) Birute Ryvityte Vytautas Kardelis Erika Jasionyte Jurgis Pakerys SLE CONFERENCE MANAGER Bert Cornillie (Leuven – Research Foundation Flanders) SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE Werner Abraham (Wien/Muenchen), Sander Adelaar (Melbourne), Karin Aijmer (Gothenburg), Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (James Cook, Cairns), Sjef Barbiers (Meertens Instituut), Ineta Dabasinskiene (Kaunas), Jean-Marc Dewaele (London), Gabriele Diewald (Hannover), Ursula Doleschal (Wien), Anna Duszak (Warsaw), Dirk Geeraerts (Leuven), Teresa Fanego (Santiago de Compostela, Chair), Maria del Pilar Garcia Mayo (Vitoria), Volker Gast (Jena), Kleanthes K. Grohmann (Nicosia), Youssef Haddad (Florida), Bernd Heine (Koeln), Eva Hajicova (Prague), Axel Holvoet (Vilnius), Johannes Kabatek (Tuebingen), Violeta Kaledaite (Kaunas), Roman Kalisz (Gdansk), Birute Klaas (Tartu), Ekkehard Koenig (Berlin), Petar Kehayov (Tartu), Elizabeth Lanza (Oslo), David Lasagabaster (Vitoria), Michele Loporcaro (Zurich), Ruta Marcinkeviciene (Research Council, Lithuania), Caterina Mauri (Pavia), Lachlan Mckenzie (Lisbon-VU Amsterdam), Edith Moravcsik (Wisconsin, Milwaukee), Pieter Muysken (Nijmegen), Robert Nicolaï (Nice), Brigitte Pakendorf (Max Planck, Leipzig), Carita Paradis (Vaxjo), Shana Poplack (Ottawa), Anna Siewierska (Lancaster), Frank Seifart (Max Planck, Leipzig), Pieter Seuren (Max Planck, Nijmegen), Carmen Silva-Corvalán (Los Angeles, USC), John-Charles Smith (Oxford), Thomas Stolz (Bremen), Jarmila Tarnyikova (Olomouc), Marina Terkourafi (Illinois, Urbana-Champaign), Sarah Thomason (Michigan), Johan van der Auwera (Antwerp), Andrejs Veisbergs (Riga), Jean-Christophe Verstraete (Leuven), Salvador Valera (Jaén), Letizia Vezzosi (Perugia), Dominique Willems (Gent), Jacek Witkos (Poznan), Virginia Yip (Hong Kong), Klaus Zimmermann (Bremen), Debra Ziegeler (Singapore), Ghil'ad Zuckermann (Queensland) WORKSHOPS Since SLE 2009, more than half of the presentations take place within the framework of thematic workshops. Proposals for workshops are hence particularly welcome. They should contain (i) a description of the topic (including research questions to be addressed) and (ii) a provisional list of workshop participants and a three line description of their topics We encourage workshop convenors to distribute an open call for papers on the LinguistList and other fora. The deadline for the submission of workshop proposals is 15 November 2009. Notification of acceptance will follow by 15 December 2009. All abstracts of workshop papers have to be registered and sent to us by 1 January 2010. Since we want all conference participants to be able to attend individual workshop presentations, SLE workshops have to be compatible with the main conference programme. This means that the format of the workshops must be organized around 30 minute presentations (20 min. + 10 min. discussion). Each workshop ideally comprises: 1. An introductory paper by the convenor(s) or by a key-note speaker. It should summarize previous research, specify the approaches to be found in the workshop and explain the scope of the papers to be given. 2. Seven or eight papers. The preference is for one-day workshops, but two-day workshops may also be considered. 3. A slot for final discussion on topics covered by the papers, methodological issues and questions for future research. More details can be discussed with the SLE conference manager. POSTERS The next SLE meeting will hold two poster sessions of an hour for both senior and junior researchers. Posters and oral presentations will be evaluated according to the same quality standards. In order to foster interaction, all other sessions will be suspended during the poster session. The maximum size of the poster is 1,10 m x 1 m. For more information about how to make a good poster, click here. The deadline for the submission of poster abstracts is 1 January 2010. CALL FOR PAPERS Workshops, posters and individual papers are invited on all topics belonging to the field of linguistics. Presentations will be 20 minutes plus 10 minutes question time. Abstracts should not exceed 500 words (exclusive of references) and should state research questions, approach, method, data and (expected) results. The abstract will also contain three to five key words specifying the (sub)domain, the topic and the approach. Abstracts will be reviewed anonymously by three people. Due to the good efforts of the SLE 2009 SC, the acceptance rate of the Lisbon conference was 57% for the general session. (More information on SLE 2009 can be found here) The deadline for all abstracts (for the general session, the poster session and the workshops) is 1 January 2010. Notification of acceptance will be given by 31 March 2010. Submit your title through the Submit Abstract form and email your abstract as an attachment to sle at arts.kuleuven.be. The abstract should not mention the presenter(s) nor their affiliations or addresses. Abstracts are preferably in Word or .RTF format; if your abstract contains special symbols, please include a pdf version as well. Prize for the best presentation and the best poster On the basis of the ranking of the abstracts, the Scientific Committee will set up an internal shortlist with nominees for the prize of best oral presentation and the prize for best poster. Members of the Executive Committee and the Scientific Committee will decide on the last day of the meeting who will receive the prizes, which consist of 500 euros. Nominees are PhD students or postdocs who finish their dissertation in the academic year of 2009-2010. REGISTRATION Registration will start from 1 April 2010 onwards. SLE 2010 keeps the SLE 2009 conference fees (see our website). Become a member of the Societas Linguistica Europaea and get a discount. SOCIAL PROGRAMME There will be a reception (included in the registration fee) and a conference dinner. On Sunday afternoon there will be a post-conference excursion. Further information will be given in the second circular. HOW TO GET TO VILNIUS Frequent flights operate between Vilnius or Kaunas and most European capitals. Vilnius airport is 5 km (3miles) south of the city centre. The carriers are: Aer Lingus, Air Baltic, Austrian airlines, Brussels Airlines, Finnair, LOT, Lufthansa, SAS, Skyways, Star1 Airlines, etc. There are good train, shuttle and taxi connections between the airport and the city centre. Vilnius Railway Station is very centrally located. There are connections with Warsaw, Berlin and St Petersburg. IMPORTANT DATES 15 November 2009: deadline for submission of workshop proposals 1 January 2010: deadline for submission of poster and paper abstracts 31 March 2010: notification of acceptance 1 April 2010: early registration starts 1 June 2010: registration (full fee) CONTACT SLE 2010 Local organizing committee: Jolanta Sinkuniene (Secretary) Tel. +370 618 68887 Fax +370 5 2687 228 E-mail: sle43 at flf.vu.lt SLE conference manager: sle at arts.kuleuven.be Local Conference Secretariat: [cid:6.2.1.2.1.20090924115446.027b0d60 at arts.kuleuven.be.0] Meeting Management Company Olimpieciu 1-34, LT-09200 Vilnius, Lithuania Phone: +370 5 2000780 Fax: +370 5 2000782 E-mail: sle43 at viaconventus.com _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l From johanna.barddal at uib.no Thu Nov 19 13:50:18 2009 From: johanna.barddal at uib.no (johanna.barddal at uib.no) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:50:18 +0100 Subject: 2nd cfp: Variation and Change in Argument Realization Message-ID: Second call for papers: Workshop on "Variation and Change in Argument Realization" organized by Jóhanna Barðdal (University of Bergen) and Michela Cennamo (University of Naples Federico II) Location: Capri and Naples, 28-30 May 2010 Invited speakers - Balthasar Bickel (University of Leipzig) - Miriam Fried (Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague) - Adam Ledgeway (University of Cambridge) - Ranko Matasovic (University of Zagreb) - Nigel Vincent (University of Manchester) URL: http://ling.uib.no/IECASTP/Workshop6.htm Research on the nature of argument structure and the factors determining its encoding and representation has highlighted the complex interplay of semantic, syntactic and pragmatic factors that determine argument realization within and across languages (cf. Cennamo 2003, Levin and Rappaport Hovav 2005, Bentley 2006, Goldberg 2006, Barðdal 2006, 2008, Ramchand 2008, Van Valin 2009, among others). The consensus view emerging from a large body of synchronic research acknowledges the key roles played by event-based notions such as aspect (e.g., telicity, incremental theme) and control, and inherent features of argument fillers, such as animacy and definiteness, in determining the mapping from the lexical semantic to the morphosyntactic planes. The existence of non-event based aspects in the encoding of arguments has also prompted current investigation of the contribution of the idiosyncratic (the root) and structural facets (the event-structure templates) of the meaning of verbs to argument realization, and the principles governing their integration (Rappaport Hovav 2008). This workshop aims at exploring these issues from a diachronic and variational perspective (cf. Barðdal and Chelliah 2009, Cennamo 2009), bringing together different strands of research on event/argument structure, as reflected in the choice of invited speakers, and focusing on: a) the applicability of current models, whether typological, projectionist, constructional, neo-constructional, co-compositional, and others, on actual diachronic changes and variational data from different domains, such as auxiliary selection, argument marking and linking, ditransitives, the conative, locative, (anti)causative alternation, etc. b) the predictions they make as to the progression and actualization of change, for instance whether syntactic aspects are affected earlier by change than lexical aspects, the role played by pragmatic notions, frequency, etc. c) the generalizations offered for recurrent patterns of variation and change, and the uniformity encountered. Contributions are invited from scholars of different theoretical persuasions for discussion on the general and specific implications of different theoretical models on argument/event structure in a diachronic and/or variational perspective, including, but not limited to, the following: - voice - case-marking and grammatical relations - (in)transitive alternations - split intransitivity - existential/presentative constructions Please send your abstracts of 500 words or less to the workshop's contact person: Eystein Dahl (Eystein.Dahl at uib.no). Abstracts should be sent no later than 15 December 2009, preferably in pdf-format. A response on abstracts will be sent out no later than 20 January 2010. References Barðdal, J. 2006. Construction-specific properties of syntactic subjects in Icelandic and German. Cognitive Linguistics 17 (1): 39-106. Barðdal, J. 2008. Productivity: Evidence from Case and Argument Structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Barðdal, J. and S. L. Chelliah (eds.). 2009. The Role of Semantic, Pragmatic, and Discourse Factors in the Development of Case. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bentley, D. 2006. Split intransitivity in Italian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Cennamo, M. 2003. (In)transitivity and object marking: some current issues. In G. Fiorentino (ed.), Romance Objects, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 49-104. Cennamo, M. 2009. Argument structure and alignment variations and changes in Late Latin. In Barðdal, J. and S. L. Chelliah (eds.), 307-346. Goldberg, A. E. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Levin, B. and M. Rappaport Hovav. 2005. Argument Realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ramchand, G. C. 2008. Verb Meaning and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rappaport Hovav, M. 2008. Lexicalized meaning and the internal temporal structure of events. In Rothstein (ed.), Crosslinguistic and Theoretical Approaches to the Semantics of Aspect. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 13-42. Van Valin, R. D. 2009. Lexical representation, co-composition, and linking syntax and semantics. J. Pustejovsky & P. Bullion (eds.), New Developments in the Generative Lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer. To appear. =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ Jóhanna Barðdal Research Associate Professor Department of Linguistic, Literary and Aesthetic Studies University of Bergen P.O. box 7805 NO-5020 Bergen Norway johanna.barddal at uib.no Phone +47-55582438 (work) Phone +47-55201117 (home) Fax +47-55589660 (work) http://ling.uib.no/barddal _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l From Lobke.Ghesquiere at arts.kuleuven.be Mon Nov 2 16:35:12 2009 From: Lobke.Ghesquiere at arts.kuleuven.be (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Lobke_Ghesqui=E8re?=) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 17:35:12 +0100 Subject: Call for papers: Workshop: 'Multiple source constructions in language change' Message-ID: Call for papers: Workshop: 'Multiple source constructions in language change' The 43rd annual Meeting of Societas Linguistica Europaea Vilnius University, Lithuania, 2-5 September 2010 http://www.flf.vu.lt/sle2010/ Workshop proposal In recent work on grammaticalization and language change in general, it has often been stressed that change does not affect individual lexemes, but entire constructions (see Bybee et al. 1994: 11; Croft 2000:62, 156, 163; Heine 2003: 575; Bybee 2003: 602-3, 2007; Traugott 2007). However, although most case studies on diachronic language change now recognize the importance of the source construction as a whole, they generally focus on just one such construction, drawing gradual, yet straight lines from one particular source construction to one specific syntagm. Using the metaphor proposed in Croft (2000: 32-37), constructions form diachronic lineages as they are replicated in usage, and change is typically conceived of as occurring within a lineage through altered replication. Recent studies, however, demonstrate that innovations in language change may derive not just from one, but from different sources at once. That is, change often seems to involve some interaction between lineages or between the branches of a lineage. Multiplicity of source constructions can be witnessed on two levels. On the macro-level, the involvement of multiple source constructions entails a merger of clearly distinct lineages. One linguistic item or construction can then be traced back to two independent items or constructions, each with its own prior history. Several types of merger can be discerned, which are however not mutually exclusive: ? Syntactic blends ('intraference' in Croft 2000): the formal and functional features of different lineages are recombined into a new construction. For example, the Lunda passive has been argued to combine two source constructions, a left-dislocated object construction and an impersonal construction (Giv?n & Kawasha 2006). The history of English gerunds and present participles seems to be a protracted series of mergers, with exchange of formal, semantic and distributional features (Fanego 1998; Miller 2000), to the point that the two clause types are now believed to have merged completely (Huddleston & Pullum 2002). ? Contact-induced change ('interference' in Croft 2000): the function of a foreign construction is merged with a 'home-bred' form. Examples are the use of the locative preposition bei instead of von to mark the agent of passives in Pennsylvania Dutch under the influence of English (Heine & Kuteva 2003: 538), or the emergence of a periphrastic perfect in Silesian Polish, calqued on the German perfect (Croft 2000: 146). ? Two lineages produce paradigmatic alternates in a single construction. Here lineages merge on a functional level, but their different forms are retained and integrated in a new paradigm. The clearest case is morphological suppletion, as in English go/went or Classical Greek trekh-/dram- 'run'. However, the phenomenon also occurs in syntax, as illustrated by the alternation of Dutch hebben/zijn or German haben/sein as perfect auxiliaries. As is well known, the choice for one auxiliary or the other depends on the semantics of the verb: transitives and unergatives take hebben/haben; unaccusatives take zijn/sein. Though currently functioning as alternates within a single grammatical category, the hebben/haben-perfect and the zijn/sein-perfect can be traced back to different source constructions (Van der Wal 1992:152-153). ? A constructional slot attracts new items: it has been proposed that when functional domains recruit new items through grammaticalization, this may in part be due to analogical attraction by a more abstract syntactic construction (Fischer 2007). This seems particularly plausible when, in the extreme case, an abstract slot recruits productively from a single source domain. For instance, the English evidential be-Ved-to-V-construction has become productive for verbs of perception, communication and cognition (No?l 2001). But the issue is more complicated when items from different source domains are involved. Prepositions, for instance, may be derived from very different sources yet converge on a single new category, as illustrated by German statt and wegen, deriving from nominal constructions, as opposed to w?hrend, deriving from a participle (Kluge 2002). On the micro-level, innovation can take place within what is historically a single lineage, but under the influence of different uses of the same item. ? In lexical semantics, Geeraerts (1997) proposes that two senses of a polysemous lexical item may conspire to produce a third. ? The same seems to happen in grammar. New uses of a grammatical or grammaticalizing item may be triggered by pragmatic implicatures arising (seemingly?) independently in a number of its collocations. For example, the aspectual meanings of the English phrasal verb particle out arose in several specific collocations at once (De Smet forthc.). The development of the emphasizing meaning of particular was influenced by two other sense strains of the adjective - a descriptive and a determining one - each associated with its own specific collocational set. (Ghesqui?re 2009). ? The most dramatic cases are certain examples of degrammaticalization. For example, Fischer (2000) has argued that, long after it had been reanalysed as an infinitive marker, English to has developed back in the direction of the preposition to. The recurrent involvement of multiple source constructions in language change raises a number of questions, from methodological/descriptive to theoretical: 1. How do we prove that different source constructions have a genuine impact? Clearly, mere resemblance of constructions does not necessarily imply that they actually interact as sources of an innovation. 2. How should we typologize the various changes involving multiple source constructions? For a start, involvement of multiple sources may be more likely in some domains of grammar than others (semantics, morphology, syntax) and is certainly more conspicuous in some cases than in others (macro-level vs. micro-level). It is not entirely clear, then, whether in all cases we are dealing with a similar phenomenon, triggered by fundamentally similar mechanisms. 3. How common is the involvement of multiple source constructions in language change? It is possible that the involvement of multiple source constructions is a significant catalyst for change, which could even imply that 'uncontaminated' lineage-internal changes form the exception. Alternatively, the involvement of multiple sources could be merely apparent or accidental and have no great impact on change. 4. How can developments involving multiple source constructions be modelled in a theory of grammar and language change? Especially if change canonically involves multiple sources, this has implications for how constructions are represented in speakers' minds and how language change takes place (Joseph 1992). Proper theoretical modelling of different changes is also necessary to determine to what extent multiplicity of source constructions in change is a homogeneous phenomenon. We invite papers that address one or more of the above questions, to be presented in a one-day workshop, bringing together scholars interested in language change, from the domains of grammar, grammaticalization, morphology and typology. Particularly welcome are papers that are based on corpus and/or historical data and that aim to contribute to existing theorizing. Confirmed key note speaker: Brian Joseph Venue: The workshop is to be held at the 43rd annual meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europeae in Vilnius, September 2-5 (http://www.flf.vu.lt/sle2010/). Timeline: We ask potential participants to send us their provisional titles and short descriptions no later than November 12, so as to allow us to submit a workshop programme, including a preliminary list of participants and a short description of their topics, to the SLE Scientific Committee. Contributors will be notified if the workshop is accepted by December 15. Abstracts should then be submitted electronically via the SLE website by January 1. Contact: Lobke.Ghesquiere at arts.kuleuven.be Workshop conveners: Freek Van de Velde, Lobke Ghesqui?re, Hendrik De Smet References Bybee, J., R. Perkins & W. Pagliuca (1994). The evolution of grammar. Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bybee, J. (2003). Mechanisms of change in grammaticalization. The role of frequency. In: Joseph, B.D. & R.D. Janda (eds.). The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. 602-623. Bybee, J. (2007). Historical Linguistics. In: Geeraerts, D. & H. Cuyckens (eds.) The handbook of cognitive linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 945-987. Croft, W. (2000). Explaining language change. An evolutionary approach. Harlow: Longman. De Smet, H. (forthc.). Grammatical interference. Subject marker for and phrasal verb particle out. In: Traugott, E. & G. Trousdale (eds). Gradualness, gradience and grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Fanego, T. (1998). Developments in argument linking in early Modern English gerund phrases. English Language and Linguistics 2: 87-119. Fischer, O. (2000). Grammaticalisation: unidirectional, non-reversible? The case of to before the infinitive in English. In: Fischer, O., A. Rosenbach & D. Stein (eds.). Pathways of change. Grammaticalization in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 149-169. Fischer, O. (2007). Approaches to morphosyntactic change from a functional and formal perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Geeraerts, D. (1997). Diachronic prototype semantics. A contribution to historical lexicology. Oxford: Clarendon Press Ghesqui?re, L. (2009). (Inter)subjectification and structural movement in the English NP. The adjectives of specificity. Folia Linguistica 43 (2): 311-343. Giv?n, T. & B. Kawasha. (2006). Indiscrete grammatical relations. The Lunda passive. In: Tsunoda, T. & T. Kageyama (eds.). Voice and Grammatical Relations. In Honor of Masayoshi Shibatani (Typology Studies in Language 65). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 15-41. Heine, B. (2003). Grammaticalization. In: Joseph, B.D. & R.D. Janda (eds.). The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. 575-601. Heine, B. & T. Kuteva (2003). "On contact-induced grammaticalization". Studies in Language 27:529-572. Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambrige: Cambridge University Press. Joseph, B.D. (1992). Diachronic explanation. Putting the speaker back into the picture. In: Davis, G.W. & G.K. Iverson (eds.). Explanations in historical linguistics. John Benjamins. 123-144. Kluge, F. (2002). Etymologisches W?rterbuch der deutschen Sprache. Berlin: De Gruyter. Miller, G.D. (2002). Nonfinite structures in theory and change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. No?l, D. (2001). The passive matrices of English infinitival complement clauses. Evidentials on the road to auxiliarihood? Studies in Language 25: 255-296. Traugott, E. (2007). The concepts of constructional mismatch and type-shifting from the perspective of grammaticalization. Cognitive Linguistics 18: 523-557. Van der Wal, M. (i.c.w. C. van Bree) (1992). Geschiedenis van het Nederlands. Utrecht: Spectrum. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l From johncharles.smith at stcatz.ox.ac.uk Tue Nov 3 10:21:44 2009 From: johncharles.smith at stcatz.ox.ac.uk (Johncharles Smith) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 10:21:44 +0000 Subject: Conference announcement -- SLE 2010 Message-ID: (Apologies for cross-postings) FIRST CALL FOR PAPERS 43rd Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea 2-5 September 2010 Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania http://www.societaslinguistica.eu/ The Societas Linguistica Europaea and the Vilnius Local Organizing Committee invite you to submit workshop, poster and paper proposals for the next annual SLE meeting. SLE meetings give a forum to high-quality scientific research from all (sub)domains of linguistics. Every year local organizers pay special attention to one specific topic. Though the next annual meeting particularly welcomes papers on ?Language contact: at the crossroads of disciplines and frameworks?, workshops, posters and individual papers are invited on topics belonging to all fields of linguistics. PLENARY SPEAKERS Bas Aarts (London) Balthasar Bickel (Leipzig) Hubert Cuyckens (Leuven) Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (Stockholm) Tania Kuteva (Duesseldorf) Vladimir Plungian (Moscow) LOCAL ORGANIZING COMMITTEE Aurelija Usoniene (Chair) Antanas Smetona Jolanta Sinkuniene (Secretary) Birute Ryvityte Vytautas Kardelis Erika Jasionyte Jurgis Pakerys SLE CONFERENCE MANAGER Bert Cornillie (Leuven ? Research Foundation Flanders) SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE Werner Abraham (Wien/Muenchen), Sander Adelaar (Melbourne), Karin Aijmer (Gothenburg), Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (James Cook, Cairns), Sjef Barbiers (Meertens Instituut), Ineta Dabasinskiene (Kaunas), Jean-Marc Dewaele (London), Gabriele Diewald (Hannover), Ursula Doleschal (Wien), Anna Duszak (Warsaw), Dirk Geeraerts (Leuven), Teresa Fanego (Santiago de Compostela, Chair), Maria del Pilar Garcia Mayo (Vitoria), Volker Gast (Jena), Kleanthes K. Grohmann (Nicosia), Youssef Haddad (Florida), Bernd Heine (Koeln), Eva Hajicova (Prague), Axel Holvoet (Vilnius), Johannes Kabatek (Tuebingen), Violeta Kaledaite (Kaunas), Roman Kalisz (Gdansk), Birute Klaas (Tartu), Ekkehard Koenig (Berlin), Petar Kehayov (Tartu), Elizabeth Lanza (Oslo), David Lasagabaster (Vitoria), Michele Loporcaro (Zurich), Ruta Marcinkeviciene (Research Council, Lithuania), Caterina Mauri (Pavia), Lachlan Mckenzie (Lisbon-VU Amsterdam), Edith Moravcsik (Wisconsin, Milwaukee), Pieter Muysken (Nijmegen), Robert Nicola? (Nice), Brigitte Pakendorf (Max Planck, Leipzig), Carita Paradis (Vaxjo), Shana Poplack (Ottawa), Anna Siewierska (Lancaster), Frank Seifart (Max Planck, Leipzig), Pieter Seuren (Max Planck, Nijmegen), Carmen Silva-Corval?n (Los Angeles, USC), John-Charles Smith (Oxford), Thomas Stolz (Bremen), Jarmila Tarnyikova (Olomouc), Marina Terkourafi (Illinois, Urbana-Champaign), Sarah Thomason (Michigan), Johan van der Auwera (Antwerp), Andrejs Veisbergs (Riga), Jean-Christophe Verstraete (Leuven), Salvador Valera (Ja?n), Letizia Vezzosi (Perugia), Dominique Willems (Gent), Jacek Witkos (Poznan), Virginia Yip (Hong Kong), Klaus Zimmermann (Bremen), Debra Ziegeler (Singapore), Ghil'ad Zuckermann (Queensland) WORKSHOPS Since SLE 2009, more than half of the presentations take place within the framework of thematic workshops. Proposals for workshops are hence particularly welcome. They should contain (i) a description of the topic (including research questions to be addressed) and (ii) a provisional list of workshop participants and a three line description of their topics We encourage workshop convenors to distribute an open call for papers on the LinguistList and other fora. The deadline for the submission of workshop proposals is 15 November 2009. Notification of acceptance will follow by 15 December 2009. All abstracts of workshop papers have to be registered and sent to us by 1 January 2010. Since we want all conference participants to be able to attend individual workshop presentations, SLE workshops have to be compatible with the main conference programme. This means that the format of the workshops must be organized around 30 minute presentations (20 min. + 10 min. discussion). Each workshop ideally comprises: 1. An introductory paper by the convenor(s) or by a key-note speaker. It should summarize previous research, specify the approaches to be found in the workshop and explain the scope of the papers to be given. 2. Seven or eight papers. The preference is for one-day workshops, but two-day workshops may also be considered. 3. A slot for final discussion on topics covered by the papers, methodological issues and questions for future research. More details can be discussed with the SLE conference manager. POSTERS The next SLE meeting will hold two poster sessions of an hour for both senior and junior researchers. Posters and oral presentations will be evaluated according to the same quality standards. In order to foster interaction, all other sessions will be suspended during the poster session. The maximum size of the poster is 1,10 m x 1 m. For more information about how to make a good poster, click here. The deadline for the submission of poster abstracts is 1 January 2010. CALL FOR PAPERS Workshops, posters and individual papers are invited on all topics belonging to the field of linguistics. Presentations will be 20 minutes plus 10 minutes question time. Abstracts should not exceed 500 words (exclusive of references) and should state research questions, approach, method, data and (expected) results. The abstract will also contain three to five key words specifying the (sub)domain, the topic and the approach. Abstracts will be reviewed anonymously by three people. Due to the good efforts of the SLE 2009 SC, the acceptance rate of the Lisbon conference was 57% for the general session. (More information on SLE 2009 can be found here) The deadline for all abstracts (for the general session, the poster session and the workshops) is 1 January 2010. Notification of acceptance will be given by 31 March 2010. Submit your title through the Submit Abstract form and email your abstract as an attachment to sle at arts.kuleuven.be. The abstract should not mention the presenter(s) nor their affiliations or addresses. Abstracts are preferably in Word or .RTF format; if your abstract contains special symbols, please include a pdf version as well. Prize for the best presentation and the best poster On the basis of the ranking of the abstracts, the Scientific Committee will set up an internal shortlist with nominees for the prize of best oral presentation and the prize for best poster. Members of the Executive Committee and the Scientific Committee will decide on the last day of the meeting who will receive the prizes, which consist of 500 euros. Nominees are PhD students or postdocs who finish their dissertation in the academic year of 2009-2010. REGISTRATION Registration will start from 1 April 2010 onwards. SLE 2010 keeps the SLE 2009 conference fees (see our website). Become a member of the Societas Linguistica Europaea and get a discount. SOCIAL PROGRAMME There will be a reception (included in the registration fee) and a conference dinner. On Sunday afternoon there will be a post-conference excursion. Further information will be given in the second circular. HOW TO GET TO VILNIUS Frequent flights operate between Vilnius or Kaunas and most European capitals. Vilnius airport is 5 km (3miles) south of the city centre. The carriers are: Aer Lingus, Air Baltic, Austrian airlines, Brussels Airlines, Finnair, LOT, Lufthansa, SAS, Skyways, Star1 Airlines, etc. There are good train, shuttle and taxi connections between the airport and the city centre. Vilnius Railway Station is very centrally located. There are connections with Warsaw, Berlin and St Petersburg. IMPORTANT DATES 15 November 2009: deadline for submission of workshop proposals 1 January 2010: deadline for submission of poster and paper abstracts 31 March 2010: notification of acceptance 1 April 2010: early registration starts 1 June 2010: registration (full fee) CONTACT SLE 2010 Local organizing committee: Jolanta Sinkuniene (Secretary) Tel. +370 618 68887 Fax +370 5 2687 228 E-mail: sle43 at flf.vu.lt SLE conference manager: sle at arts.kuleuven.be Local Conference Secretariat: [cid:6.2.1.2.1.20090924115446.027b0d60 at arts.kuleuven.be.0] Meeting Management Company Olimpieciu 1-34, LT-09200 Vilnius, Lithuania Phone: +370 5 2000780 Fax: +370 5 2000782 E-mail: sle43 at viaconventus.com _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l From johanna.barddal at uib.no Thu Nov 19 13:50:18 2009 From: johanna.barddal at uib.no (johanna.barddal at uib.no) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:50:18 +0100 Subject: 2nd cfp: Variation and Change in Argument Realization Message-ID: Second call for papers: Workshop on "Variation and Change in Argument Realization" organized by J?hanna Bar?dal (University of Bergen) and Michela Cennamo (University of Naples Federico II) Location: Capri and Naples, 28-30 May 2010 Invited speakers - Balthasar Bickel (University of Leipzig) - Miriam Fried (Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague) - Adam Ledgeway (University of Cambridge) - Ranko Matasovic (University of Zagreb) - Nigel Vincent (University of Manchester) URL: http://ling.uib.no/IECASTP/Workshop6.htm Research on the nature of argument structure and the factors determining its encoding and representation has highlighted the complex interplay of semantic, syntactic and pragmatic factors that determine argument realization within and across languages (cf. Cennamo 2003, Levin and Rappaport Hovav 2005, Bentley 2006, Goldberg 2006, Bar?dal 2006, 2008, Ramchand 2008, Van Valin 2009, among others). The consensus view emerging from a large body of synchronic research acknowledges the key roles played by event-based notions such as aspect (e.g., telicity, incremental theme) and control, and inherent features of argument fillers, such as animacy and definiteness, in determining the mapping from the lexical semantic to the morphosyntactic planes. The existence of non-event based aspects in the encoding of arguments has also prompted current investigation of the contribution of the idiosyncratic (the root) and structural facets (the event-structure templates) of the meaning of verbs to argument realization, and the principles governing their integration (Rappaport Hovav 2008). This workshop aims at exploring these issues from a diachronic and variational perspective (cf. Bar?dal and Chelliah 2009, Cennamo 2009), bringing together different strands of research on event/argument structure, as reflected in the choice of invited speakers, and focusing on: a) the applicability of current models, whether typological, projectionist, constructional, neo-constructional, co-compositional, and others, on actual diachronic changes and variational data from different domains, such as auxiliary selection, argument marking and linking, ditransitives, the conative, locative, (anti)causative alternation, etc. b) the predictions they make as to the progression and actualization of change, for instance whether syntactic aspects are affected earlier by change than lexical aspects, the role played by pragmatic notions, frequency, etc. c) the generalizations offered for recurrent patterns of variation and change, and the uniformity encountered. Contributions are invited from scholars of different theoretical persuasions for discussion on the general and specific implications of different theoretical models on argument/event structure in a diachronic and/or variational perspective, including, but not limited to, the following: - voice - case-marking and grammatical relations - (in)transitive alternations - split intransitivity - existential/presentative constructions Please send your abstracts of 500 words or less to the workshop's contact person: Eystein Dahl (Eystein.Dahl at uib.no). Abstracts should be sent no later than 15 December 2009, preferably in pdf-format. A response on abstracts will be sent out no later than 20 January 2010. References Bar?dal, J. 2006. Construction-specific properties of syntactic subjects in Icelandic and German. Cognitive Linguistics 17 (1): 39-106. Bar?dal, J. 2008. Productivity: Evidence from Case and Argument Structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bar?dal, J. and S. L. Chelliah (eds.). 2009. The Role of Semantic, Pragmatic, and Discourse Factors in the Development of Case. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bentley, D. 2006. Split intransitivity in Italian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Cennamo, M. 2003. (In)transitivity and object marking: some current issues. In G. Fiorentino (ed.), Romance Objects, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 49-104. Cennamo, M. 2009. Argument structure and alignment variations and changes in Late Latin. In Bar?dal, J. and S. L. Chelliah (eds.), 307-346. Goldberg, A. E. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Levin, B. and M. Rappaport Hovav. 2005. Argument Realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ramchand, G. C. 2008. Verb Meaning and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rappaport Hovav, M. 2008. Lexicalized meaning and the internal temporal structure of events. In Rothstein (ed.), Crosslinguistic and Theoretical Approaches to the Semantics of Aspect. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 13-42. Van Valin, R. D. 2009. Lexical representation, co-composition, and linking syntax and semantics. J. Pustejovsky & P. Bullion (eds.), New Developments in the Generative Lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer. To appear. =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ J?hanna Bar?dal Research Associate Professor Department of Linguistic, Literary and Aesthetic Studies University of Bergen P.O. box 7805 NO-5020 Bergen Norway johanna.barddal at uib.no Phone +47-55582438 (work) Phone +47-55201117 (home) Fax +47-55589660 (work) http://ling.uib.no/barddal _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l