<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:SimSun;
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
@font-face
{font-family:SimSun;
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@SimSun";
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Tekst zonder opmaak Char";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.5pt;
font-family:Consolas;}
span.E-mailStijl17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
span.TekstzonderopmaakChar
{mso-style-name:"Tekst zonder opmaak Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Tekst zonder opmaak";
font-family:Consolas;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page Section1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=NL-BE link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoPlainText><span lang=EN-US>Final call for papers <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><span lang=EN-US>"Usage-based approaches to language
change" at ICHL 2011 in Osaka (Japan).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><span lang=EN-US>Conveners: Evie Coussé (Ghent
University, Belgium) and Ferdinand von Mengden (Freie Universität Berlin,
Germany)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><span lang=EN-US>Workshop description<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><span lang=EN-US>Most approaches to language (change)
have principally in common that they locate the main explanandum of language in
the human mind and that they operate with categories. Change is, implicitly or
explicitly, seen as a shift of a linguistic form from one category to another whether
across discrete or fuzzy boundaries. A well-know example of this view is the
importance of reanalysis in explaining language change in mainstream historical
linguistics. Reanalysis is considered to be the underlying mechanism that
motivates changing patterns in usage such as contextual extension and
increasing generalization / abstraction in meaning. However, alternative views
have also been expressed, in which linguistic structure is seen as subject to
constant negotiation in communication.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><span lang=EN-US>Hopper’s (1998) Emergent Grammar
or Keller’s (1994) Invisible Hand are prominent examples. Without denying
the share that cognition has in the production of utterances and the usefulness
of categories for linguistic description, structure is seen as epiphenomenal in
these approaches. Structure is in a constant flux across time, area and social
strata and, therefore, language use or actual communication are the loci of
structure formation and hence of change.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><span lang=EN-US>In line with this usage-based
perspective of language and language change, an alternative for reanalysis has
been proposed in which (changing) discourse patterns are directly related to
meaning without referring to changes in abstract structures (e.g. Bybee e.a
1994, Haspelmath 1998, De Smet 2009). However, a larger coherent vision of the
relation between language usage and language change is still largely missing. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><span lang=EN-US>The workshop aims at discussing
possibilities for such a usage-based framework on language change. We wish to
combine case studies with theoretical contributions that help setting up a
comprehensive model on language change, in which language use is in the focus and
in which the core properties of language are seen in its dynamics rather than
in its states. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><span lang=EN-US>Abstract submission<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><span lang=EN-US>Abstracts of no more than 300 words,
including literature references, should be submitted through the conference
website (</span><a href="http://www.ichl2011.com/call_for_papers.html"><span
lang=EN-US>http://www.ichl2011.com/call_for_papers.html</span></a><span
lang=EN-US>). Please remember to indicate the workshop title in the appropriate
place on the abstract submission form. Deadline for submission is 15 January
2011.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><span lang=EN-US>References<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><span lang=EN-US>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><span lang=EN-US>De Smet, H. (2009) Analysing reanalysis.
In: Lingua 119, 1728-1755.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><span lang=EN-US>Haspelmath, M. (1998) Does
grammaticalization need reanalysis? In: Studies in Language 22, 315-351.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><span lang=EN-US>Hopper, P.J. (1998) Emergent grammar.
In: M. Tomasello (ed.) The new psychology of grammar: cognitive and functional
approaches to language structure. Mahwah: Erlbaum: 155-176.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><span lang=EN-US>Keller, R. (1994) On language change.
The invisible hand in language.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>London: Routlegde.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>