<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type" /><meta
content="Word.Document" name="ProgId" /><meta content="Microsoft Word 11"
name="Generator" /><meta content="Microsoft Word 11" name="Originator" /><link
href="file:///C:\Users\Dasha\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtml1\01\clip_filelist.xml"
rel="File-List" /><o:smarttagtype name="metricconverter"
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><!--[if gte mso
9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:HyphenationZone>21</w:HyphenationZone>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object
classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id=ieooui></object>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]--><style>
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}
@page Section1
{size:595.3pt 841.9pt;
margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt;
mso-header-margin:35.4pt;
mso-footer-margin:35.4pt;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"??????? ???????";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<p class="MsoNormal">APOLOGIES FOR MULTIPLE POSTING!<br />
<br />
Dear colleagues,<br />
Please be so kind as to distrubute this call for papers among interested
colleagues and potential participants.<br />
<br />
Thanks a lot!<br />
<br />
Yours sincerely,<br />
<br />
Leonid Kulikov<br />
Ilja Ser?ant<br />
<br />
Weare planning to organize the workshop. </p>
<p align="center" style="text-align: center;" class="MsoNormal"><br />
<span style="font-size: 14pt;">Workshop ?<b>Subject
and transitivity in Indo-European and beyond: A diachronic typological
perspective</b>?<br />
at the 43rd annual Meeting of Societas Linguistica Europaea Vilnius, 2?5
September 2010 </span>(<a target="_blank"
href="http://www.flf.vu.lt/sle2010/first_call">http://www.flf.vu.lt/sle2010/first_call</a>)<br
/>
<br />
Organizers:<br />
Leonid Kulikov (Leiden University) and Ilya Ser?ant (University of Bergen) <br
/>
Contact emails: <a nicetitle="Ny melding til L.Kulikov@hum.leidenuniv.nl"
href="message.php?index=4360&mailbox=INBOX">L.Kulikov@hum.leidenuniv.nl</a>
, <a nicetitle="Ny melding til ilja.serzants@uib.no"
href="message.php?index=4360&mailbox=INBOX">ilja.serzants@uib.no</a><br />
<br />
The workshop proposal (including a preliminary list of participants and the
topics of their papers) should be submitted to the SLE organizers before
November 15, 2009. <br />
Therefore we ask potential participants to send us the provisional titles of
their presentations (with a draft abstract) no later than November 7. <br />
Abstracts should be submitted by the end of December. <br />
<br />
<br />
Workshop description<br />
<br />
<b>SUBJECT AND TRANSITIVITY IN
INDO-EUROPEAN AND BEYOND: A DIACHRONIC TYPOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE<o:p /></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal"><b><br />
</b> The recent decades are marked with a
considerable progress in the study of grammatical relations (subject, object)
and their relationships with transitivity (see, among others, Hopper &
Thompson 1980; Kittilä 2002; Næss 2007). Impressive results are achieved both
in the study of the notion of prototypical transitive and intransitive clauses,
with canonical subject and object marking (see, in particular, Aikhenvald et
al. 2001; Bhaskararao & Subbarao 2004), and in the research of
intermediary, ?quasi-transitive? (?quasi-intransitive?) types, often
correlating with non-canonical encoding of the core relations (non-nominative
subjects etc.). Meticulous research of subject properties has discovered an
amazing variety of criteria of subjecthood that can be used as a powerful tool
for detecting (non-canonical) subjects and, virtually, to arrive at a more
adequate definition of subject.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><br />
Indo-European languages are particularly notorious
for their diversity of non-canonical subject marking, ranking from nominative
(standard), to dative, genitive, accusative etc., as in Icelandic (1) (see,
among others, Bar?dal 2001), Lithuanian (2a), Polish (Holvoet 1991), or Bengali
(Onishi 2001): </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br />
<br />
(1) Icelandic<br />
Mér <span> </span><span> </span>likar
þessi tilgáta<br />
I:DAT like:PRES:3SG
this hypothesis<br />
?I like this hypothesis.?<br />
<br />
<span lang="DE">(2)
Lithuanian <br />
a. <span> </span>Man
uo lietaus
su?alo <span> </span>rankos<br />
I:DAT
because of rain freeze:PAST:3SG hand:NOM.PL<br />
My hands became frozen because of rain.' <o:p /></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="DE"><br />
While the synchronic study of subject and transitivity in Indo-European
languages (and beyond) has furnished detailed descriptions of syntactic
patterns, inventories of features and types and valuable cross-linguistic
observations, little attention was paid to the diachronic aspects of the
phenomena in question. We cannot yet explain why and how the non-canonical
subject marking emerges and disappears, how does it correlate with changes in
the system of transitivity types. Correlations between different transitivity
types and the status of the syntactic arguments (in particular, their
subject/object properties) can be illustrated with the Lithuanian example in
(2b). In contrast with (2a), it instantiates a higher degree of control of the
subject over the situation, and the canonical subject marking is in correlation
with the whole construction becoming more transitive as compared to (2a)
(Ser?ant, forthc.): <o:p /></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="DE"><br />
(2) Lithuanian <br />
b. (Kol ?jau ? universitet?,)
<span> </span>su?alau
rankas, <br />
(While I was going to university)
freeze:PAST:1SG
hand:ACC.PL<br />
(nes vis? keli? spaud?iau snieg?
rankose.) <br />
(because all the way I pressed snow in
the hands)<br />
?While I was going to the university, I froze up my
hands, because all the way I pressed snow in the hands.?<br />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br />
<!--[endif]--><o:p /></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="DE"> Thus,
of particular interest are such
constructions where we observe increase of transitivity correlating with the
increase of subject (and object) properties of the core argument(s). This is
the case with the North Russian ?possessive perfect? constructions, as in (3),
which originates in possessive construction of the mihi-est type with the
passive participle (cf. Kuteva & Heine 2004), and attests acquiring subject
properties by the oblique ?possessor? noun (Timberlake 1976): <o:p /></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="DE"><br />
(3) U nego
korov-a /
korov-u podojen-o<br />
at he:GEN
cow-NOM / cow-ACC
milk:PART.PERF.PASS-SG.N<br />
?He has milked the cow.?<o:p /></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="DE"><br />
Another issue relevant for a diachronic typological
study of subject and transitivity is the evolution of alignment systems. The
developments in the system of subject-marking and expansion of non-canonical
subjects, typically accompanied by rearrangements of transitivity types, may
open the way to dramatic changes in the type of alignment ? for instance, from
nominative-accusative to ergative-absolutive (as in Indo-Iranian), or from
ergative-absolutive to nominative-accusative (as it was, presumably, the case
in Proto-Indo-European, according to some hypotheses; cf. Bauer 2001 and Bavant
2008, among others). The relationships between these syntactic phenomenon are
not yet sufficiently studied. In particular, our knowledge of the subject and
transitivity features of the Indo-European proto-language is still quite
limited (see Barðdal & Eythórsson 2009). <o:p /></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="DE"><br />
Indo-European languages, with their well-documented
history and long tradition of historical and comparative research, offer a
particularly rich opportunity for a diachronic typological study of the
above-listed issues (see Bar?dal 2001 on Icelandic). One of the first research
projects concentrating on the diachronic aspects of these phenomena started in
<st1:metricconverter w:st="on" productid="2008 in">2008
in</st1:metricconverter> Bergen, under the
general guidance of J. Bar?dal (see </span><a target="_blank"
href="http://ling.uib.no/IECASTP"><span
lang="DE">http://ling.uib.no/IECASTP</span></a><span lang="DE">). <o:p
/></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="DE"><br />
The idea of our workshop is to bring together
scholars interested in comparative research on subject and transitivity in
Indo-European and to open up new horizons in the study of these phenomena,
paying special attention to its diachronic aspects. While the workshop
concentrates mainly on evidence from Indo-European, papers on non-Indo-European
languages which could be relevant for a diachronic typological study of the
issues in question will also be welcome.<o:p /></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="DE"><br />
The issues to be addressed include, among others: <br />
? theoretical and descriptive aspects of a study of
subject and transitivity: <br />
? criteria for
subjecthood and subject properties in Indo-European <br />
? features of
transitivity and transitivity types in Indo-European; how to define
transitivity in constructions with non-canonical subjects and/or objects?<br />
? mechanisms of the rise or disappearance of
non-canonical subject-marking<br />
? evolution of transitivity and changes in the
inventory of transitivity types in the history of Indo-European<br />
? relationships between subject marking and
transitivity types: evolution of subject-marking with different semantic
classes of verbs <br />
? the main evolutionary types (from the point of
view of subject marking and transitivity types) attested for Indo-European<br />
? subject and changes in the type of alignment: the
emergence of ergativity out of constructions with non-canonical subject<br />
? voice, valency-changing categories and subject
marking: their relationships in a diachronic perspective<br />
<br />
Leonid Kulikov Ilya
Ser?ant<br />
Leiden University University of Bergen<br />
<br />
REFERENCES<br />
<br />
Aikhenvald. </span>A.Y. et al. (eds) 2001. Non-canonical marking of subjects
and objects. <span lang="DE">Amsterdam: Benjamins. <br />
Barðdal, J. 2001. Case in Icelandic: A Synchronic, Diachronic and Comparative
Approach. Lund: Dept. of Scandinavian Languages, Lund University.<br />
Barðdal, J. & Eythórsson, Th. 2009. The Origin of the Oblique Subject
Construction: An Indo-European Comparison. In: V. Bubeník et al. (eds),
Grammatical Change in Indo-European Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,
179?193.<br />
Bauer, B. 2001. Archaic syntax in Indo-European: the spread of transitivity in
Latin and French. Berlin: Mouton.<br />
Bavant, M. 2008. Proto-Indo-European ergativity... still to be discussed. Pozna?
Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 44/4: 433-447.<br />
Bhaskararao, P. & Subbarao, K. V. (eds) 2004. Non-nominative Subjects. 2
vols. Amsterdam: Benjamins.<br />
Holvoet, A. 1991. Transitivity and clause structure in Polish: a study in case
marking. Warszawa: Slawistyczny Os?rodek Wydawniczy. <br />
Holvoet, A. 2009: Difuziniai subjektai ir objektai. In: A. Holvoet & R.
Mikulskas (eds), Gramatini? funkcij? prigimtis ir rai?ka. Vilnius: Vilniaus
universitetas
& Asociacija ?Academia Salensis?, 37-68. <br />
Hopper, P. & Thompson, S. 1980. Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse.
Language 56/2: 251-299.<br />
Kittilä, S. 2002. Transitivity: toward a comprehensive typology. Åbo: Åbo
Akademiska Tryckeri. <br />
Kuteva, T. & Heine, B. 2004. On the possessive perfect in North Russian.
Word 55: 37-71.<br />
Næss, Å. 2007. Prototypical transitivity. Amsterdam: Benjamins.<br />
Onishi, M. 2001. Non-canonically marked A/S in Bengali. In: A.Y. Aikhenvald et
al. (eds), Non-canonical marking of subjects and objects. Amsterdam: Benjamins,
113-147.<br />
Ser?ant, I. A. forthc. Lability across oblique subject predicates in Baltic. In:
L. Kulikov & N. Lavidas (eds), Typology of labile verbs: Focus on
diachrony.<br />
Timberlake, A. 1976. Subject properties in the North Russian Passive. In: Ch.
N. Li (ed.), Subject and Topic. </span>New York: Academic Press, 545-594.</p>