From silvia.luraghi at unipv.it  Wed Sep  3 15:58:06 2014
From: silvia.luraghi at unipv.it (Silvia Luraghi)
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 17:58:06 +0200
Subject: Reminder: possible workshop at for ICHL22, 27-31 July 2015, Naples
Message-ID: <WED.3.SEP.2014.175806.0200.SILVIA.LURAGHI@UNIPV.IT>

Space in diachrony


we would like to call your attention on our
proposal for a workshop at ICHL 22 in Naples
(27-31 July 2015). The workshop hasn't been
accepted yet, but for the proposal we need a list
of possible titles. We invite to send us a title
by September 10th if you are interested. If our
proposal is accepted, you will have to send an
abstract following the instructions in the ICHL web page:  www.ichl22.unina.it

Send your reactions to:
Silvia Luraghi <silvia.luraghi at unipv.it
<https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l>>
Tatiana Nikitina <tavnik at gmail.com
<https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l>>

Important dates:
Deadline for workshop proposals: 20 September 2014
Notification of acceptance of workshop proposals: 20 October 2014
Deadline for submission of abstracts for general
sessions and workshops: 30 January 2015
Notification of acceptance of papers for general
sessions and workshops: 30 March 2015

Workshop proposal for ICHL22, 27-31 July 2015, Naples

  Spatial relations in diachrony

Convenors:
Silvia Luraghi, University of Pavia
Tatiana Nikitina, CNRS
Chiara Zanchi, University of Pavia



The workshop addresses changes in the coding of
spatial relations, with a focus on the coding of
similarities and differences among spatial
relations, or among variants of the same spatial
relation. Topics that we would like to discuss
include the source-goal asymmetry, differential
marking of spatial relations, polysemy or lack of
polysemy among markers of spatial relations, and
the related diachronic developments.


Asymmetries between goals and sources
Recent research has demonstrated a number of
differences in the encoding of goals and sources
of motion. In general, goals of motion are
expressed more frequently and in more
fine-grained ways than sources
(<http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01107.x/full#b56>Stefanowitsch
& Rohde 2004;
<http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01107.x/full#b54>Regier
& Zheng 2007, inter alia). The asymmetry also
shows up in more subtle syntactic phenomena:
unlike sources, which often behave as adjuncts,
goals tend to share properties with verbal
arguments, and they are also more likely than
sources to be incorporated in the argument
structure of verbal applicatives (Baker 1988;
Filip 2003). Patterns of polysemy within systems
of spatial marking also point in the same
direction: static locations are commonly coded by
the same markers as goals of motion, and in a way
distinct from sources (Blake 1977, Noonan 2009,
Nikitina 2009, Pantcheva 2010, Zwarts 2010). Not
that this pattern of polysemy means that
diachronic mergers of source and location are not
attested; much to the contrary, many individual
locative markers in European languages – such as
French dedans ‘inside’ or Ancient Greek
ópisthe(n) ‘behind’ – often go back to ablative
expressions, suggesting an earlier
ablative-locative transfer (Mackenzie 1978 with
examples from the Indo-European language phylum,
Israeli Hebrew, and two Austronesian languages,
Fijian and Sonsorol-Tobi). What seems clear from
the evidence adduced by Mackenzie, as well as
from other instances of the semantic extension
described above (cf., for example, Bennett 1989,
Nikitina & Spano 2014, Luraghi 2009 and 2010a),
is that once a marker acquires the locative
meaning, it loses the original ablative meaning.
Thus, while the extension from source to location
is attested, possibly even more frequently than
commonly believed, polysemy tends to be avoided.
Note, however, that special types of landmarks
(spatial referents, human beings) often allow
some overlap in the use of ablative and locative
encoding, and can be at the origin of
ablative-locative transfers (Eckhoff, Thomason,
de Swart  2013, Luraghi 2009 and 2014). What
accounts for the difference between the observed
synchronic patterns of spatial encoding, which
tend to conflate static locations and goals, and
the frequently attested individual instances of
ablative-locative syncretism? How do
ablative-locative transfers come about? How do
different types of goal-source asymmetry develop historically?

Differential marking of landmarks
The encoding of certain spatial relations depends
on the type of landmark, and non-conventional
landmarks (e.g. human beings) often require
special types of encoding (Luraghi 2011). With
time, such differential marking may give rise to
markers that are no longer obviously related to
the original spatial concept. For example, the
dative has been argued to be “genetically nothing
else than an offshoot of the locative used with
personal nouns” (Kurylowicz 1964: 190; cf. also
Aristar 1996). How do patterns of differential
marking of landmarks develop and what are their
conditioning factors? What types of spatial
relation are more likely to produce such asymmetries?
What is the possible relation between the
comitative, which implies the simultaneous
involvement of two entities (often human beings)
in a single event, and the locative, which
implies physical coincidence or at least
proximity? Diachronically, comitative markers
seem to arise from markers of static location;
however, synchronic locative-comitative polysemy
seems to be avoided, just like the
locative-ablative polysemy. More research is
needed on the diachronic relation between spatial
and comitative markers, as at present, most
evidence comes from Indo-European languages
(Stolz, Luraghi 2014). If location indeed
functions as a source of comitatives
cross-linguistically, what accounts for the
virtual absence of synchronic polysemy between the two semantic roles?

Asymmetries in the encoding of path
As compared to sources and goals of motion, the
role of path remains largely understudied. In the
light of cross-linguistic coding tendencies, goal
(allative), source/origin (ablative), and
(static) location (locative) seem to be more
‘basic’ spatial relations than path. As argued in
Stolz (1992: 30), there is a tendency for case
marking related to spatial relations to exhibit
‘Dreigliedrigkeit’, i.e. a tripartite structure
featuring dedicated coding devices for location,
direction and source. Indeed, path can often be
coded through cases/adpositions that usually
indicate location, as in English Mary walks in
the field. / The child is running in the street.
How are different kinds of path encoded, and
where does this encoding come from? How is the
distinction between unidirectional and
multidirectional paths represented in different
languages, and how does it develop historically?

The workshop addresses these and other issues in
order to better understand the nature of
asymmetries in the encoding of spatial relations
and shed light on the diachronic relationship
between goals, sources, paths, and static locations.


List of possible participants with tentative titles

References


Aristar, Anthony Rodriguez. 1996. The
relationship between dative and locative:
Kurylowicz’s argument from a typological perspective. Diachronica 13: 207-224.
Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of
grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bennett, David C. 1989. Ablative-locative
transfers: evidence from Slovene and Serbo-Croat.
Oxford Slavonic Papers 22: 133-154.
Blake, Barry J. 1977. Case marking in Australian
languages. No. 23 in Linguistic Series. Canberra:
Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.
Eckhoff, Hanne Martine, Olga A. Thomason and
Peter de Swart. 2013. Mapping out the Source
domain. Studies in Language 37/2: 302–355.
Filip, Hana. 2003. Prefixes and the delimitation
of events. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 11: 55–101.
Luraghi, Silvia 2009. A model for representing
polysemy: The Italian preposition da. In Jacques
François, Eric Gilbert, Claude Guimier, Maxi
Krause, éds. Actes du Colloque “Autour de la
préposition”, Caen, Presses Universitaires de Caen, 167-178.
Luraghi, Silvia. 2010. Adverbial Phrases. In A
New Historical Syntax of Latin, Ph. Baldi and P.
Cuzzolin (eds.). Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 19-107.
Luraghi, Silvia. 2011. Human landmarks in spatial
expressions: from Latin to Romance. In S.
Kittilä, K. Västi, J. Ylikoski (eds.), Case,
Animacy and Semantic Roles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 207-234.
Luraghi, Silvia. 2014. Plotting diachronic
semantic maps. The role of metaphor. In S.
Luraghi & H. Narrog, eds., Perspectives on
Semantic Roles. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 99-150.
Mackenzie, J. Lachlan. 1978. Ablative-locative
transfers and their relevance for the theory of
case-grammar. Journal of Linguistics 14: 129-375.
Nikitina, Tatiana. 2009. Subcategorization
pattern and lexical meaning of motion verbs: A
study of the Source/Goal ambiguity. Linguistics 47: 1113-41.
Nikitina, Tatiana and Marianna Spano. 2014.
'Behind' and 'in front' in Ancient Greek: A case
study in orientation asymmetry. In On Ancient
Grammars of Space: Linguistic research on the
expression of spatial relations and motion in
ancient languages, S. Kutscher & D. Werning
(eds). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 67-82.
Noonan, Michael. 2009. Patterns of development,
patterns of syncretism of relational morphology
in the Bodic languages. In The Role of Semantics
and Pragmatics in the Development of Case, J.
Barðdal and S. Celliah (eds.). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 261-282.
Pantcheva, Marina. 2010. The syntactic structure
of Locations, Goals, and Sources. Linguistics 48/5: 1043-1081.
Regier, Terry & Mingyu Zheng. 2007. Attention to
endpoints: A cross-linguistic constraint on
spatial meaning. Cognitive Science 31: 705–719.
Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Ada Rohde. 2004. The goal
bias in the encoding of motion events. In Studies
in Linguistic Motivation, G. Radden &
K.-U.Panther (eds.). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 249-268.
Stolz, Thomas, Cornelia Stroh and Aina Urdze.
2006. On comitatives and Related Categories. A
Typological Study with Special Focus on the
Languages of Europe. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Stolz, Thomas. 1992. Lokalkasussysteme.  Wilhelmsfeld: Gottfried Egert Verlag.
Zwarts, Joost. 2010. A hierarchy of locations:
Evidence from the encoding of direction in
adpositions and cases. Linguistics 48: 983-1009.



-- 
Silvia Luraghi
Università di Pavia
Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici, Sezione di Linguistica Teorica e Applicata
Strada Nuova 65
I-27100 Pavia
tel.: +39/0382/984685
Web page personale:
http://lettere.unipv.it/diplinguistica/docenti.php?&id=68
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/histling-l/attachments/20140903/fe03812f/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Histling-l mailing list
Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu
https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l

From francois at vjf.cnrs.fr  Mon Sep 15 13:54:11 2014
From: francois at vjf.cnrs.fr (Alex Francois)
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 15:54:11 +0200
Subject: ICHL22 - Workshop proposal,
 CfP: "Non-cladistic approaches to language genealogy"
Message-ID: <MON.15.SEP.2014.155411.0200.FRANCOIS@VJF.CNRS.FR>

Dear historical linguists,


We would like to draw your attention to the following workshop we are
proposing to organise at the next ICHL conference.  If you are interested
in taking part in this event, you are welcome to contact us as early as
possible, using the contact details given below (and in the attached file).


Best,

Alex
_________
Alex François
LACITO-CNRS <http://lacito.vjf.cnrs.fr/membres/francois.htm>, France
Australian National University
<https://researchers.anu.edu.au/researchers/francois-a>, Canberra
Personal homepage <http://alex.francois.free.fr>
__________________

Workshop proposal:
“*Non-cladistic approaches to language genealogy*”



*Organisers*

Siva Kalyan (Australian National University): siva.kalyan at anu.edu.au
Alexandre François (CNRS–LaCiTO, ANU): francois at vjf.cnrs.fr



To be held at the 22nd *International Conference on Historical Linguistics*
(ICHL22 <http://www.ichl22.unina.it/>),
*27–31 July 2015*, Naples.



*Rationale*



Ever since it was popularised by August Schleicher (1853, 1873), the
family-tree model has been the dominant paradigm for representing the
historical relations among the languages in a family.



The tree model is not without its strengths. Not only does it represent
patterns of relatedness among languages, but it also commits itself to
reconstructing the sequence of historical and social events that gave rise
to these patterns. Further, the formal simplicity of cladistic
representations makes it possible to apply powerful computational
techniques from biology, which have become increasingly popular in recent
years (Ringe et al. 2002, Gray et al. 2010, among many others).



However, the advantages of the tree model come at the cost of making a very
restrictive assumption: namely, that language families evolve primarily by
splitting, with subsequent loss of contact. Put another way, the tree model
assumes that once two speech varieties have started to diverge, it is no
longer possible for innovations to diffuse from one to the other. This
assumption excludes the possibility of overlapping subgroups.



Yet it is well-known that in a dialect network, innovations can diffuse
between speech varieties that have already diverged from each other
(Bloomfield 1933). Furthermore, many language families are known to have
arisen through the gradual breakup of a dialect network. In such language
families—which Ross (1988: 8) calls *linkages*—innovations diffuse in
intersecting patterns, leading naturally to the formation of overlapping
subgroups. Under a tree model, such intersecting innovations would be
explained away as instances of “(horizontal) contact”, to be contrasted
with "genealogical change"; but this is unhelpful, as it fails to recognise
that the same process of diffusion underlies all instances of language
change, whether "genealogical" or "contact-induced" (Croft 2000).



In a linkage, the assumptions of the tree model are not satisfied, and any
cladistic representation is necessarily inadequate (Heggarty et al. 2010,
François 2014, Kalyan & François forthcoming). There is thus a great need
for rigorous studies of linkages that follow the essential principles of
the Comparative Method, yet do not presuppose the validity of cladistic
approaches. Such work is indeed possible, and is capable of yielding
insights about linguistic and social history; this has already been shown
in several case studies of specific language families, such as Geraghty
(1983) on Fijian, Ross (1988) on Western Oceanic, and Toulmin (2009) on the
Kamta branch of Indo-Aryan, Magidow (2013) on Arabic dialects, among many
others.



We also need to develop new ways of representing language genealogy, which
dispense with the shortcomings of the tree model, while preserving its
strengths. Many proposals have been made in the literature (e.g. "tree
envelopes": Southworth 1964; isogloss maps: Anttila 1972; "*truncated
octopus*-like trees": Hock 1991; NeighborNet: Bryant et al. 2005; trees
with "contact edges": Nakhleh et al. 2005; "glottometric diagrams": Kalyan
& François forthcoming), yet so far there is no widely accepted,
satisfactory solution. More discussion would be welcome among historical
linguists, to achieve consensus on the best methodology (or methodologies)
to represent linguistic subgroups when they intersect.



Finally, any proposed non-cladistic representation of genealogy will raise
the question of how to interpret it in historical terms. Addressing this
requires theoretical discussion of the social conditions and mechanisms of
language change that lead to the development of a linkage (see Ross 1997,
François 2011, 2014).



Non-cladistic approaches to language genealogy are still in their infancy;
we hope that this workshop serves to spur further research into this
hitherto-neglected, but fundamentally important area.



*Scope of the workshop*


This workshop welcomes presentations which provide one or more of the
following:
1.       Data from a language family that poses problems for the
family-tree model—in particular, a language family that exhibits extensive
internal contact.
2.       Application of existing non-cladistic computational methods (e.g.
NeighborNet, multidimensional scaling, Structure [Pritchard et al. 2000],
Historical Glottometry) to an existing dataset.
3.       Innovative proposals for modeling or representing language
genealogy in a non-cladistic way.
4.       Discussion (either theoretical or with respect to a particular
language family) of the social conditions and mechanisms of language change
that are responsible for linkage-like vs. tree-like genealogies.

*Presenters  *(provisional list)

·    Paul Geraghty, “The origins of Proto Polynesian: Tokalau Fijian
revisited”
·    Paul Heggarty, “Splits, shared innovations…and the real world. How
methodological dogmas distort our ‘histories’ of languages and their
speakers.”
·    Alexander Magidow, TBA
·    (other presenters, TBA)

Prospective participants are invited to contact Alexandre François (
francois at vjf.cnrs.fr) and Siva Kalyan (sivakalyan.princeton at gmail.com) to
express their interest.  A provisional title would be welcome.


*Important dates*

Deadline for workshop proposals:  20 September 2014

Notification of acceptance of workshop proposals:  20 October 2014

Deadline for submission of abstracts for general sessions and workshops:  30
January 2015

Notification of acceptance of papers for general sessions and workshops:  30
March 2015



*References*

Anttila, Raimo. 1972. *An introduction to historical and comparative
linguistics*. New York: Macmillan.

Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. *Language*. New York: Holt.

Bryant, David, Flavia Filimon and Russell D. Gray. 2005. Untangling our
past: Languages, Trees, Splits and Networks. In R. Mace, C. Holden & S.
Shennan (eds.), *The Evolution of Cultural Diversity: Phylogenetic
Approaches*. London: UCL Press. 69–85.  [link
<http://www.google.fr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Flanguage.psy.auckland.ac.nz%2Ffiles%2Fbryant_et_al2005%2Fbryant_et_al2005.pdf&ei=sugWVNvkOI2Xat2GgfgH&usg=AFQjCNHYSxsDjZjyZK8hEa5rLaPEXGOQMA&sig2=mivJkEZ2ctqluFGtrh3hRw&bvm=bv.75097201,d.d2s&cad=rja>
]

Croft, William A. 2000. *Explaining language change: an evolutionary
approach* (Longman Linguistics Library). Harlow, England: Longman.

François, Alexandre. 2011. Social ecology and language history in the
northern Vanuatu linkage: A tale of divergence and convergence. *Journal of
Historical Linguistics *1(2):175–246.  [link
<https://www.academia.edu/3256435/Social_ecology_and_language_history_in_the_northern_Vanuatu_linkage_A_tale_of_divergence_and_convergence>
]

François, Alexandre. 2014. Trees, waves and linkages: models of language
diversification. In Claire Bowern & Bethwyn Evans (eds.), *The Routledge
handbook of historical linguistics*, 161–189. New York: Routledge. [link
<https://www.academia.edu/4806233/Trees_Waves_and_Linkages_Models_of_Language_Diversification>
]

Geraghty, Paul A. 1983. *The history of the Fijian languages* (Oceanic
Linguistics Special Publication No. 19). Honolulu: University of Hawaii
Press.

Gray, Russell D., David Bryant & Simon J. Greenhill. 2010. On the shape and
fabric of human history. *Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B*
365(1559). 3923–3933.  [link
<http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/365/1559/3923.abstract>]

Heggarty, Paul, Warren Maguire & April McMahon. 2010. Splits or waves?
Trees or webs? How divergence measures and network analysis can unravel
language histories. *Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B*
365(1559). 3829–3843. [link
<http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/365/1559/3829.abstract>]

Hock, Hans Henrich. 1991. *Principles of Historical Linguistics*. 2nd
edition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Kalyan, Siva & Alexandre François. Forthcoming. Freeing the Comparative
Method from the tree model: A framework for Historical Glottometry. In
Ritsuko Kikusawa & Lawrence A. Reid (eds.), *Let’s Talk about Trees:
Tackling problems in representing phylogenic relationships among languages*
(Senri Ethnological Studies). Ōsaka: National Museum of Ethnology. [link
<http://bit.ly/SK-AF_HG>]

Magidow, Alexander. 2013. *Towards a Sociohistorical Reconstruction of
Pre-Islamic Arabic Dialect Diversity*. PhD dissertation. Middle Eastern
Studies, University of Texas, Austin. 492 pp. [link
<http://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/21378>]

Nakhleh, Luay, Don Ringe & Tandy Warnow. 2005. Perfect phylogenetic
networks: a new methodology for reconstructing the evolutionary history of
natural languages. *Language* 81(2). 382–420.  [link
<http://www.google.fr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cs.rice.edu%2F~nakhleh%2FPapers%2F81.2nakhleh.pdf&ei=3usWVP-YFYzmaML2gOAF&usg=AFQjCNGySxYKuql6W_ZIpps-h1bm2jtJ1w&sig2=fT6uhmeQD5eLwEKACVXEyw&bvm=bv.75097201,d.d2s>
]

Pritchard, Jonathan K., Matthew Stephens and Peter Donnelly. 2000.
Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. *Genetics*
155. 945–959.  [link <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1461096/>]

Ringe, Don, Tandy Warnow & Ann Taylor. 2002. Indo-European and
computational cladistics. *Transactions of the Philological Society*
100(1). 59–129.

Ross, Malcolm D. 1988. *Proto Oceanic and the Austronesian languages of
Western Melanesia* (Pacific Linguistics, Series C – 98). Canberra: Pacific
Linguistics.

Ross, Malcolm D. 1997. Social networks and kinds of speech-community event.
In Roger Blench & Matthew Spriggs (eds.), *Archaeology and language 1:
theoretical and methodological orientations*, 209–261. London: Routledge.

Schleicher, August. 1853. Die ersten Spaltungen des indogermanischen
Urvolkes. In Johann Gustav Droysen & G. W. Nitzsch (eds.), *Allgemeine
Monatsschrift für Wissenschaft und Literatur*, 786–787. Braunschweig: C. A.
Schwestchke & Sohn.

Schleicher, August. 1873. *Die Darwinsche Theorie und die
Sprachwissenschaft: Offenes Sendschreiben an Herrn Dr. Ernst Häckel, o.
Professor der Zoologie und Director des zoologischen Museums an der
Universität Jena*. 2nd edition. Weimar: Hermann Böhlau.

Southworth, Franklin C. 1964. Family-tree diagrams. *Language* 40(4).
557–565.

Toulmin, Matthew. 2009. *From linguistic to sociolinguistic reconstruction:
the Kamta historical subgroup of Indo-Aryan* (Pacific Linguistics 604).
Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/histling-l/attachments/20140915/5c72910a/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICHL22_Workshop-proposal_Francois-Kalyan.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 985023 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/histling-l/attachments/20140915/5c72910a/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Histling-l mailing list
Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu
https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l

From silvia.luraghi at unipv.it  Wed Sep  3 15:58:06 2014
From: silvia.luraghi at unipv.it (Silvia Luraghi)
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 17:58:06 +0200
Subject: Reminder: possible workshop at for ICHL22, 27-31 July 2015, Naples
Message-ID: <WED.3.SEP.2014.175806.0200.SILVIA.LURAGHI@UNIPV.IT>

Space in diachrony


we would like to call your attention on our
proposal for a workshop at ICHL 22 in Naples
(27-31 July 2015). The workshop hasn't been
accepted yet, but for the proposal we need a list
of possible titles. We invite to send us a title
by September 10th if you are interested. If our
proposal is accepted, you will have to send an
abstract following the instructions in the ICHL web page:  www.ichl22.unina.it

Send your reactions to:
Silvia Luraghi <silvia.luraghi at unipv.it
<https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l>>
Tatiana Nikitina <tavnik at gmail.com
<https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l>>

Important dates:
Deadline for workshop proposals: 20 September 2014
Notification of acceptance of workshop proposals: 20 October 2014
Deadline for submission of abstracts for general
sessions and workshops: 30 January 2015
Notification of acceptance of papers for general
sessions and workshops: 30 March 2015

Workshop proposal for ICHL22, 27-31 July 2015, Naples

  Spatial relations in diachrony

Convenors:
Silvia Luraghi, University of Pavia
Tatiana Nikitina, CNRS
Chiara Zanchi, University of Pavia



The workshop addresses changes in the coding of
spatial relations, with a focus on the coding of
similarities and differences among spatial
relations, or among variants of the same spatial
relation. Topics that we would like to discuss
include the source-goal asymmetry, differential
marking of spatial relations, polysemy or lack of
polysemy among markers of spatial relations, and
the related diachronic developments.


Asymmetries between goals and sources
Recent research has demonstrated a number of
differences in the encoding of goals and sources
of motion. In general, goals of motion are
expressed more frequently and in more
fine-grained ways than sources
(<http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01107.x/full#b56>Stefanowitsch
& Rohde 2004;
<http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01107.x/full#b54>Regier
& Zheng 2007, inter alia). The asymmetry also
shows up in more subtle syntactic phenomena:
unlike sources, which often behave as adjuncts,
goals tend to share properties with verbal
arguments, and they are also more likely than
sources to be incorporated in the argument
structure of verbal applicatives (Baker 1988;
Filip 2003). Patterns of polysemy within systems
of spatial marking also point in the same
direction: static locations are commonly coded by
the same markers as goals of motion, and in a way
distinct from sources (Blake 1977, Noonan 2009,
Nikitina 2009, Pantcheva 2010, Zwarts 2010). Not
that this pattern of polysemy means that
diachronic mergers of source and location are not
attested; much to the contrary, many individual
locative markers in European languages ? such as
French dedans ?inside? or Ancient Greek
?pisthe(n) ?behind? ? often go back to ablative
expressions, suggesting an earlier
ablative-locative transfer (Mackenzie 1978 with
examples from the Indo-European language phylum,
Israeli Hebrew, and two Austronesian languages,
Fijian and Sonsorol-Tobi). What seems clear from
the evidence adduced by Mackenzie, as well as
from other instances of the semantic extension
described above (cf., for example, Bennett 1989,
Nikitina & Spano 2014, Luraghi 2009 and 2010a),
is that once a marker acquires the locative
meaning, it loses the original ablative meaning.
Thus, while the extension from source to location
is attested, possibly even more frequently than
commonly believed, polysemy tends to be avoided.
Note, however, that special types of landmarks
(spatial referents, human beings) often allow
some overlap in the use of ablative and locative
encoding, and can be at the origin of
ablative-locative transfers (Eckhoff, Thomason,
de Swart  2013, Luraghi 2009 and 2014). What
accounts for the difference between the observed
synchronic patterns of spatial encoding, which
tend to conflate static locations and goals, and
the frequently attested individual instances of
ablative-locative syncretism? How do
ablative-locative transfers come about? How do
different types of goal-source asymmetry develop historically?

Differential marking of landmarks
The encoding of certain spatial relations depends
on the type of landmark, and non-conventional
landmarks (e.g. human beings) often require
special types of encoding (Luraghi 2011). With
time, such differential marking may give rise to
markers that are no longer obviously related to
the original spatial concept. For example, the
dative has been argued to be ?genetically nothing
else than an offshoot of the locative used with
personal nouns? (Kurylowicz 1964: 190; cf. also
Aristar 1996). How do patterns of differential
marking of landmarks develop and what are their
conditioning factors? What types of spatial
relation are more likely to produce such asymmetries?
What is the possible relation between the
comitative, which implies the simultaneous
involvement of two entities (often human beings)
in a single event, and the locative, which
implies physical coincidence or at least
proximity? Diachronically, comitative markers
seem to arise from markers of static location;
however, synchronic locative-comitative polysemy
seems to be avoided, just like the
locative-ablative polysemy. More research is
needed on the diachronic relation between spatial
and comitative markers, as at present, most
evidence comes from Indo-European languages
(Stolz, Luraghi 2014). If location indeed
functions as a source of comitatives
cross-linguistically, what accounts for the
virtual absence of synchronic polysemy between the two semantic roles?

Asymmetries in the encoding of path
As compared to sources and goals of motion, the
role of path remains largely understudied. In the
light of cross-linguistic coding tendencies, goal
(allative), source/origin (ablative), and
(static) location (locative) seem to be more
?basic? spatial relations than path. As argued in
Stolz (1992: 30), there is a tendency for case
marking related to spatial relations to exhibit
?Dreigliedrigkeit?, i.e. a tripartite structure
featuring dedicated coding devices for location,
direction and source. Indeed, path can often be
coded through cases/adpositions that usually
indicate location, as in English Mary walks in
the field. / The child is running in the street.
How are different kinds of path encoded, and
where does this encoding come from? How is the
distinction between unidirectional and
multidirectional paths represented in different
languages, and how does it develop historically?

The workshop addresses these and other issues in
order to better understand the nature of
asymmetries in the encoding of spatial relations
and shed light on the diachronic relationship
between goals, sources, paths, and static locations.


List of possible participants with tentative titles

References


Aristar, Anthony Rodriguez. 1996. The
relationship between dative and locative:
Kurylowicz?s argument from a typological perspective. Diachronica 13: 207-224.
Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of
grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bennett, David C. 1989. Ablative-locative
transfers: evidence from Slovene and Serbo-Croat.
Oxford Slavonic Papers 22: 133-154.
Blake, Barry J. 1977. Case marking in Australian
languages. No. 23 in Linguistic Series. Canberra:
Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.
Eckhoff, Hanne Martine, Olga A. Thomason and
Peter de Swart. 2013. Mapping out the Source
domain. Studies in Language 37/2: 302?355.
Filip, Hana. 2003. Prefixes and the delimitation
of events. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 11: 55?101.
Luraghi, Silvia 2009. A model for representing
polysemy: The Italian preposition da. In Jacques
Fran?ois, Eric Gilbert, Claude Guimier, Maxi
Krause, ?ds. Actes du Colloque ?Autour de la
pr?position?, Caen, Presses Universitaires de Caen, 167-178.
Luraghi, Silvia. 2010. Adverbial Phrases. In A
New Historical Syntax of Latin, Ph. Baldi and P.
Cuzzolin (eds.). Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 19-107.
Luraghi, Silvia. 2011. Human landmarks in spatial
expressions: from Latin to Romance. In S.
Kittil?, K. V?sti, J. Ylikoski (eds.), Case,
Animacy and Semantic Roles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 207-234.
Luraghi, Silvia. 2014. Plotting diachronic
semantic maps. The role of metaphor. In S.
Luraghi & H. Narrog, eds., Perspectives on
Semantic Roles. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 99-150.
Mackenzie, J. Lachlan. 1978. Ablative-locative
transfers and their relevance for the theory of
case-grammar. Journal of Linguistics 14: 129-375.
Nikitina, Tatiana. 2009. Subcategorization
pattern and lexical meaning of motion verbs: A
study of the Source/Goal ambiguity. Linguistics 47: 1113-41.
Nikitina, Tatiana and Marianna Spano. 2014.
'Behind' and 'in front' in Ancient Greek: A case
study in orientation asymmetry. In On Ancient
Grammars of Space: Linguistic research on the
expression of spatial relations and motion in
ancient languages, S. Kutscher & D. Werning
(eds). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 67-82.
Noonan, Michael. 2009. Patterns of development,
patterns of syncretism of relational morphology
in the Bodic languages. In The Role of Semantics
and Pragmatics in the Development of Case, J.
Bar?dal and S. Celliah (eds.). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 261-282.
Pantcheva, Marina. 2010. The syntactic structure
of Locations, Goals, and Sources. Linguistics 48/5: 1043-1081.
Regier, Terry & Mingyu Zheng. 2007. Attention to
endpoints: A cross-linguistic constraint on
spatial meaning. Cognitive Science 31: 705?719.
Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Ada Rohde. 2004. The goal
bias in the encoding of motion events. In Studies
in Linguistic Motivation, G. Radden &
K.-U.Panther (eds.). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 249-268.
Stolz, Thomas, Cornelia Stroh and Aina Urdze.
2006. On comitatives and Related Categories. A
Typological Study with Special Focus on the
Languages of Europe. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Stolz, Thomas. 1992. Lokalkasussysteme.  Wilhelmsfeld: Gottfried Egert Verlag.
Zwarts, Joost. 2010. A hierarchy of locations:
Evidence from the encoding of direction in
adpositions and cases. Linguistics 48: 983-1009.



-- 
Silvia Luraghi
Universit? di Pavia
Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici, Sezione di Linguistica Teorica e Applicata
Strada Nuova 65
I-27100 Pavia
tel.: +39/0382/984685
Web page personale:
http://lettere.unipv.it/diplinguistica/docenti.php?&id=68
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/histling-l/attachments/20140903/fe03812f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Histling-l mailing list
Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu
https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l

From francois at vjf.cnrs.fr  Mon Sep 15 13:54:11 2014
From: francois at vjf.cnrs.fr (Alex Francois)
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 15:54:11 +0200
Subject: ICHL22 - Workshop proposal,
 CfP: "Non-cladistic approaches to language genealogy"
Message-ID: <MON.15.SEP.2014.155411.0200.FRANCOIS@VJF.CNRS.FR>

Dear historical linguists,


We would like to draw your attention to the following workshop we are
proposing to organise at the next ICHL conference.  If you are interested
in taking part in this event, you are welcome to contact us as early as
possible, using the contact details given below (and in the attached file).


Best,

Alex
_________
Alex Fran?ois
LACITO-CNRS <http://lacito.vjf.cnrs.fr/membres/francois.htm>, France
Australian National University
<https://researchers.anu.edu.au/researchers/francois-a>, Canberra
Personal homepage <http://alex.francois.free.fr>
__________________

Workshop proposal:
?*Non-cladistic approaches to language genealogy*?



*Organisers*

Siva Kalyan (Australian National University): siva.kalyan at anu.edu.au
Alexandre Fran?ois (CNRS?LaCiTO, ANU): francois at vjf.cnrs.fr



To be held at the 22nd *International Conference on Historical Linguistics*
(ICHL22 <http://www.ichl22.unina.it/>),
*27?31 July 2015*, Naples.



*Rationale*



Ever since it was popularised by August Schleicher (1853, 1873), the
family-tree model has been the dominant paradigm for representing the
historical relations among the languages in a family.



The tree model is not without its strengths. Not only does it represent
patterns of relatedness among languages, but it also commits itself to
reconstructing the sequence of historical and social events that gave rise
to these patterns. Further, the formal simplicity of cladistic
representations makes it possible to apply powerful computational
techniques from biology, which have become increasingly popular in recent
years (Ringe et al. 2002, Gray et al. 2010, among many others).



However, the advantages of the tree model come at the cost of making a very
restrictive assumption: namely, that language families evolve primarily by
splitting, with subsequent loss of contact. Put another way, the tree model
assumes that once two speech varieties have started to diverge, it is no
longer possible for innovations to diffuse from one to the other. This
assumption excludes the possibility of overlapping subgroups.



Yet it is well-known that in a dialect network, innovations can diffuse
between speech varieties that have already diverged from each other
(Bloomfield 1933). Furthermore, many language families are known to have
arisen through the gradual breakup of a dialect network. In such language
families?which Ross (1988: 8) calls *linkages*?innovations diffuse in
intersecting patterns, leading naturally to the formation of overlapping
subgroups. Under a tree model, such intersecting innovations would be
explained away as instances of ?(horizontal) contact?, to be contrasted
with "genealogical change"; but this is unhelpful, as it fails to recognise
that the same process of diffusion underlies all instances of language
change, whether "genealogical" or "contact-induced" (Croft 2000).



In a linkage, the assumptions of the tree model are not satisfied, and any
cladistic representation is necessarily inadequate (Heggarty et al. 2010,
Fran?ois 2014, Kalyan & Fran?ois forthcoming). There is thus a great need
for rigorous studies of linkages that follow the essential principles of
the Comparative Method, yet do not presuppose the validity of cladistic
approaches. Such work is indeed possible, and is capable of yielding
insights about linguistic and social history; this has already been shown
in several case studies of specific language families, such as Geraghty
(1983) on Fijian, Ross (1988) on Western Oceanic, and Toulmin (2009) on the
Kamta branch of Indo-Aryan, Magidow (2013) on Arabic dialects, among many
others.



We also need to develop new ways of representing language genealogy, which
dispense with the shortcomings of the tree model, while preserving its
strengths. Many proposals have been made in the literature (e.g. "tree
envelopes": Southworth 1964; isogloss maps: Anttila 1972; "*truncated
octopus*-like trees": Hock 1991; NeighborNet: Bryant et al. 2005; trees
with "contact edges": Nakhleh et al. 2005; "glottometric diagrams": Kalyan
& Fran?ois forthcoming), yet so far there is no widely accepted,
satisfactory solution. More discussion would be welcome among historical
linguists, to achieve consensus on the best methodology (or methodologies)
to represent linguistic subgroups when they intersect.



Finally, any proposed non-cladistic representation of genealogy will raise
the question of how to interpret it in historical terms. Addressing this
requires theoretical discussion of the social conditions and mechanisms of
language change that lead to the development of a linkage (see Ross 1997,
Fran?ois 2011, 2014).



Non-cladistic approaches to language genealogy are still in their infancy;
we hope that this workshop serves to spur further research into this
hitherto-neglected, but fundamentally important area.



*Scope of the workshop*


This workshop welcomes presentations which provide one or more of the
following:
1.       Data from a language family that poses problems for the
family-tree model?in particular, a language family that exhibits extensive
internal contact.
2.       Application of existing non-cladistic computational methods (e.g.
NeighborNet, multidimensional scaling, Structure [Pritchard et al. 2000],
Historical Glottometry) to an existing dataset.
3.       Innovative proposals for modeling or representing language
genealogy in a non-cladistic way.
4.       Discussion (either theoretical or with respect to a particular
language family) of the social conditions and mechanisms of language change
that are responsible for linkage-like vs. tree-like genealogies.

*Presenters  *(provisional list)

?    Paul Geraghty, ?The origins of Proto Polynesian: Tokalau Fijian
revisited?
?    Paul Heggarty, ?Splits, shared innovations?and the real world. How
methodological dogmas distort our ?histories? of languages and their
speakers.?
?    Alexander Magidow, TBA
?    (other presenters, TBA)

Prospective participants are invited to contact Alexandre Fran?ois (
francois at vjf.cnrs.fr) and Siva Kalyan (sivakalyan.princeton at gmail.com) to
express their interest.  A provisional title would be welcome.


*Important dates*

Deadline for workshop proposals:  20 September 2014

Notification of acceptance of workshop proposals:  20 October 2014

Deadline for submission of abstracts for general sessions and workshops:  30
January 2015

Notification of acceptance of papers for general sessions and workshops:  30
March 2015



*References*

Anttila, Raimo. 1972. *An introduction to historical and comparative
linguistics*. New York: Macmillan.

Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. *Language*. New York: Holt.

Bryant, David, Flavia Filimon and Russell D. Gray. 2005. Untangling our
past: Languages, Trees, Splits and Networks. In R. Mace, C. Holden & S.
Shennan (eds.), *The Evolution of Cultural Diversity: Phylogenetic
Approaches*. London: UCL Press. 69?85.  [link
<http://www.google.fr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Flanguage.psy.auckland.ac.nz%2Ffiles%2Fbryant_et_al2005%2Fbryant_et_al2005.pdf&ei=sugWVNvkOI2Xat2GgfgH&usg=AFQjCNHYSxsDjZjyZK8hEa5rLaPEXGOQMA&sig2=mivJkEZ2ctqluFGtrh3hRw&bvm=bv.75097201,d.d2s&cad=rja>
]

Croft, William A. 2000. *Explaining language change: an evolutionary
approach* (Longman Linguistics Library). Harlow, England: Longman.

Fran?ois, Alexandre. 2011. Social ecology and language history in the
northern Vanuatu linkage: A tale of divergence and convergence. *Journal of
Historical Linguistics *1(2):175?246.  [link
<https://www.academia.edu/3256435/Social_ecology_and_language_history_in_the_northern_Vanuatu_linkage_A_tale_of_divergence_and_convergence>
]

Fran?ois, Alexandre. 2014. Trees, waves and linkages: models of language
diversification. In Claire Bowern & Bethwyn Evans (eds.), *The Routledge
handbook of historical linguistics*, 161?189. New York: Routledge. [link
<https://www.academia.edu/4806233/Trees_Waves_and_Linkages_Models_of_Language_Diversification>
]

Geraghty, Paul A. 1983. *The history of the Fijian languages* (Oceanic
Linguistics Special Publication No. 19). Honolulu: University of Hawaii
Press.

Gray, Russell D., David Bryant & Simon J. Greenhill. 2010. On the shape and
fabric of human history. *Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B*
365(1559). 3923?3933.  [link
<http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/365/1559/3923.abstract>]

Heggarty, Paul, Warren Maguire & April McMahon. 2010. Splits or waves?
Trees or webs? How divergence measures and network analysis can unravel
language histories. *Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B*
365(1559). 3829?3843. [link
<http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/365/1559/3829.abstract>]

Hock, Hans Henrich. 1991. *Principles of Historical Linguistics*. 2nd
edition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Kalyan, Siva & Alexandre Fran?ois. Forthcoming. Freeing the Comparative
Method from the tree model: A framework for Historical Glottometry. In
Ritsuko Kikusawa & Lawrence A. Reid (eds.), *Let?s Talk about Trees:
Tackling problems in representing phylogenic relationships among languages*
(Senri Ethnological Studies). ?saka: National Museum of Ethnology. [link
<http://bit.ly/SK-AF_HG>]

Magidow, Alexander. 2013. *Towards a Sociohistorical Reconstruction of
Pre-Islamic Arabic Dialect Diversity*. PhD dissertation. Middle Eastern
Studies, University of Texas, Austin. 492 pp. [link
<http://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/21378>]

Nakhleh, Luay, Don Ringe & Tandy Warnow. 2005. Perfect phylogenetic
networks: a new methodology for reconstructing the evolutionary history of
natural languages. *Language* 81(2). 382?420.  [link
<http://www.google.fr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cs.rice.edu%2F~nakhleh%2FPapers%2F81.2nakhleh.pdf&ei=3usWVP-YFYzmaML2gOAF&usg=AFQjCNGySxYKuql6W_ZIpps-h1bm2jtJ1w&sig2=fT6uhmeQD5eLwEKACVXEyw&bvm=bv.75097201,d.d2s>
]

Pritchard, Jonathan K., Matthew Stephens and Peter Donnelly. 2000.
Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. *Genetics*
155. 945?959.  [link <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1461096/>]

Ringe, Don, Tandy Warnow & Ann Taylor. 2002. Indo-European and
computational cladistics. *Transactions of the Philological Society*
100(1). 59?129.

Ross, Malcolm D. 1988. *Proto Oceanic and the Austronesian languages of
Western Melanesia* (Pacific Linguistics, Series C ? 98). Canberra: Pacific
Linguistics.

Ross, Malcolm D. 1997. Social networks and kinds of speech-community event.
In Roger Blench & Matthew Spriggs (eds.), *Archaeology and language 1:
theoretical and methodological orientations*, 209?261. London: Routledge.

Schleicher, August. 1853. Die ersten Spaltungen des indogermanischen
Urvolkes. In Johann Gustav Droysen & G. W. Nitzsch (eds.), *Allgemeine
Monatsschrift f?r Wissenschaft und Literatur*, 786?787. Braunschweig: C. A.
Schwestchke & Sohn.

Schleicher, August. 1873. *Die Darwinsche Theorie und die
Sprachwissenschaft: Offenes Sendschreiben an Herrn Dr. Ernst H?ckel, o.
Professor der Zoologie und Director des zoologischen Museums an der
Universit?t Jena*. 2nd edition. Weimar: Hermann B?hlau.

Southworth, Franklin C. 1964. Family-tree diagrams. *Language* 40(4).
557?565.

Toulmin, Matthew. 2009. *From linguistic to sociolinguistic reconstruction:
the Kamta historical subgroup of Indo-Aryan* (Pacific Linguistics 604).
Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/histling-l/attachments/20140915/5c72910a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICHL22_Workshop-proposal_Francois-Kalyan.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 985023 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/histling-l/attachments/20140915/5c72910a/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Histling-l mailing list
Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu
https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l