<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<br>
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<div id="header">
<table style="background-color: #f7f7f7; padding: 5px;
border-bottom: 1px solid #dddddd; margin-bottom: 50px;
text-align: left; width: 100%;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="middle" align="left"><a
href="https://grelspoc2023.sciencesconf.org"
moz-do-not-send="true"><img id="header_logo"
style="margin-right: 30px;"
src="https://grelspoc2023.sciencesconf.org/data/header/arc3_2_.jpeg"
alt="" name="header_logo" moz-do-not-send="true"
border="0"></a></td>
<td valign="middle" align="left">
<div id="header_title"><a
href="https://grelspoc2023.sciencesconf.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">GRelSpoC 2023: Grammatical
Relations in Spoken Language Corpora</a></div>
<div id="header_subtitle"> </div>
<div id="header_wheredate">15-16 Jun 2023 Paris (France)</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<div id="preview_content" style="\'font-family:Verdana,"
geneva,sans-serif\?;="">
<p align="center"><strong>Workshop: Grammatical relations in
spoken language corpora</strong></p>
<p align="center">15 – 16 June 2023, Paris (France)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Scholars with a broadly usage-oriented view on language share
the idea that the linguistic structures encountered in human
language systems arise from diachronic processes of language
evolution that are in turn shaped by considerations of
language processing, learning and usage (cf. e.g. Sinnemäki
2014 for an overview). Recent years have seen a steep rise in
studies directly addressing issues of processing and
learnability in relation to typological distributions of
linguistic structures, e.g. in experimental studies from
neuro- (Sauppe et al 2021; Bickel et al 2015) and
psycholinguistics (Adamou 2017) as well as in artificial
language learning experiments (Tal et al 2022; Mansfield et al
2022).</p>
<p>Corpus-based studies (of language usage by adult speakers)
related to typological questions have a longer history within
the functionalist tradition of linguistics associated with
scholars like Wallace Chafe or Talmy Givón (and their
associates and successors) as well as Zipf’s (1935) seminal
work on frequency distributions and form-frequency
correspondences. Larger-scale corpus studies of relevance for
typology have examined in particular word order (Greenberg
1963; Dryer 1992; Futrell et al 2015, 2020; Levshina 2019) and
marking asymmetries (Greenberg 1966; Levshina 2021; Haspelmath
& Karjus 2014), taking efficiency as a core characteristic
underlying language use as well as the design of human
language systems (cf. Gibson et al 2019 for an overview). Yet,
for the most part this work is based on corpora from larger
languages (often with a literary tradition and
official/standard status in at least one country), and largely
on written corpora.</p>
<p>In this workshop we focus on the interrelation of grammatical
relations as reflected in the structure of individual
languages and their communicative underpinnings in discourse
production, and we seek to bring together scholars with a
primary focus on corpus-based work. We intend to broaden the
perspective on the usage-oriented rationale behind specific
structural aspects of grammatical relation systems. We hence
seek corpus-based research that includes not only classic
discourse-functional factors like topic marking and topic
continuity (Givón 1976, 1983; Shibatani 1991) or the converse
function of reference establishment (DuBois 1987; cf. Evans
& Levinson 2009:440), but also structural (e.g. the
interplay of person agreement and pronoun use, cf. Taraldsen
1980; Rosenkvist 2009, 2018; Schnell & Barth 2020),
cultural, and social factors (e.g. use of ergative
constructions in relation to the social role of speakers in
Samoan, cf. Duranti 1994).</p>
<p>We furthermore restrict the purview of this workshop to
spoken-language discourse as we see spoken language usage not
only as the primary seedbed for the emergence of grammatical
relations generally speaking (by way of its primordial form of
usage of human languages) and specifically as containing those
interactions between prosodic, syntactic and morphological
structure that lie behind processes of univerbation and
morphologization (Lehmann 2015 [1982]; Bybee 1985).</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Invited speakers:</strong> </p>
<p>Linda Konnerth (University of Bern)</p>
<p>Henrik Rosenkvist (University of Gothenburg)</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Call for papers:</strong></p>
<p>We invite contributions of corpus-based research that are
primarily based on spoken-language production data, and
preferably on data from hitherto understudied languages.
Possible topics include, but are not restricted to:</p>
<ul>
<li>Conditioning of differential case marking/flagging,
indexing of core argument functions</li>
<li>Alignment splits in regards to core argument encoding, and
its reflections in language use</li>
<li>Variation in word order</li>
<li>Structural factors impacting the use of specific
structures in grammatical relations</li>
<li>Communicative functions of distinct structural features</li>
<li>Interplay of case, indexing and word order with prosodic
chunking and intonation</li>
<li>Role of prosodic principles in linguistic unit formation
in grammatical relations</li>
</ul>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Abstracts</strong> should be no longer than 700 words
including examples, and in PDF format.</p>
<p><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Abstract submission
deadline</span>: 15 February 2023 </p>
<p><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Notification of
acceptance</span>: 17 March 2023 </p>
<p><strong>To submit an abstract</strong>, go to <a
href="https://grelspoc2023.sciencesconf.org/"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://grelspoc2023.sciencesconf.org/</a>,
create an account under “Login”. Once you have logged in, go
to “My Submissions”, and follow the instructions.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Katharina Haude (Sedyl, CNRS)</p>
<p>Eva van Lier (University of Amsterdam)</p>
<p>Sonja Riesberg (LaCiTO, CNRS)</p>
<p>Stefan Schnell (University of Zurich)</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a href="mailto:grelspoc2023@sciencesconf.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">grelspoc2023@sciencesconf.org</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>References</strong></p>
<p>Adamou, E. 2017. Subject preference in Ixcatec relative
clauses (Otomanguean, Mexico). <em>Studies in Language</em>,
41(4): 872-913.</p>
<p>Bickel, B., Witzlack-Makarevich, A., Choudhary, K.K.,
Schlesewsky, M., & Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. 2015. The
neurophysiology of language processing shapes the evolution of
grammar. Evidence from case marking. <em>PLoS ONE</em> <em>8</em>(10),
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0132819.</p>
<p>Bybee, J. L. 1985. <em>Morphology: a study of the relation
between meaning and form</em>. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.</p>
<p>Du Bois, J. W. The discourse basis of ergativity. <em>Language</em>
63, 805–855.</p>
<p>Duranti, A. 1994. From grammar to politics. Linguistic
anthropology in a Western Samoan village. Berkley, CA:
University of California Press.</p>
<p>Dryer, M. S. (1992). The Greenbergian word order
correlations. <em>Language</em>, 68(1), 81–138.</p>
<p>Evans, N. & Levinson, S. C.. 2009. The myth of language
universals: Language diversity and its importance for
cognitive science. <em>Behavioral and Brain Science</em> 32,
429–492.</p>
<p>Futrell, R., Mahowald, K., & Gibson, E. 2015. Large-scale
evidence of dependency length minimization in 37 languages. <em>Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences</em>, 112(33),
10336–10341.</p>
<p>Futrell, R., Levy, R. P., & Gibson, E. 2020. Dependency
locality as an explanatory principle for word order. <em>Language</em>,
96(2), 371–412.</p>
<p>Gibson, E., Futrell, R., Piantadosi, S. T., Dautriche, I.,
Mahowald, K., Bergen, L., Levy, R. (2019). How efficiency
shapes human language. Trends in Cognitive Science 23(5),
389—407. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2019.02.003.</p>
<p>Givón, T. 1976. Topic, pronoun, and grammatical agreement. In
C. N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic. 149—188. New York: Academic
Press.</p>
<p>Givón, T. 1983. Topic continuity in discourse. An
introduction. In T. Givón (Ed.), <em>Topic continuity in
discourse.</em> 1—42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.</p>
<p>Greenberg, J. H. 1963. Some universals of grammar with
particular referent tot he order of meaningful elements. In:
J.H. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of grammar. 73—113.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.</p>
<p>Greenberg, J. H. 1966. Language universals, with special
reference to feature hierarchies. The Hague: Mouton.</p>
<p>Haspelmath, M. & Karjus, A. 2017. Explaining asymmetries
in number marking: singulars, plurals, and usage frequencies.
Linguistics 55(6), 1213—1235.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://doi.org/10.1515/ling‐2017‐0026">https://doi.org/10.1515/ling‐2017‐0026</a></p>
<p>Lehmann, C. 2015 [1982]. Thoughts on grammaticalization.
Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI: 10.17169/langsci.b88.98
DOI: 10.17169/langsci.b88.99</p>
<p>Levshina, N. 2019. Token-based typology and word order
entropy: A study based on Universal Dependencies. <em>Linguistic
Typology</em>, 23(3), 533–572. DOI:
10.1515/lingty-2019-0025Levshina, N. (2021). Communicative
efficiency and differential case marking: a
reverse-engineering approach. <em>Linguistics Vanguard</em>,
<em>7</em>(s3).</p>
<p>Mansfield, J., Saldaña, C., Hurst, P., Nordlinger, R.,
Stoll, S., Bickel, B., Perfors, A. 2022. Category
clustering and morphological learning. <em>Cognitive Science</em>,
46(2): e13107. DOI: 10.1111/cogs.13107.</p>
<p>Mansfield, J., Stoll, S., Bickel, B. 2020. Category
clustering. A probabilistic bias in the morphology of verbal
agreement marking. <em>Language</em> 96(2), 255–293.
DOI:10.1353/lan.2020.0021.</p>
<p>Rosenkvist, H. 2009. Referential null subjects in Germanic
languages–an overview. <em>Working papers in Scandinavian
syntax</em>, 84, 151–180.</p>
<p>Rosenkvist, H. 2018. Null subjects and distinct agreement in
Modern Germanic. In F. Cognola, J. Cassalicchio (Eds.), Nul
subjects in generative grammar. A synchronic and diachronic
perspective. 285—306. Oxford: Oxford University Press.</p>
<p>Sauppe, S., Choudhary, K.K., Giroud, N., Blasi, D.E.,
Norcliffe, E., Bhattamishra, S., Gulati, M., Egurtzegi, A.,
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., Meyer, M., Bickel, B. 2021. Neural
signatures of syntactic variation in speech planning. PLoS
biology 19(1), e3001038.</p>
<p>Shibatani, M. 1991. Grammaticization of topic into subject.
In E. C. Traugott, B. Heine (Eds.), <em>Approaches to
grammaticalization. Volume 2</em>. 93-133.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.</p>
<p>Schnell, S., & Barth, D. (2020). Expression of anaphoric
subjects in Vera'a: Functional and structural factors in the
choice between pronoun and zero. <em>Language Variation and
Change</em>, 32(3), 267-291.</p>
<p>Sinnemäki, K. 2014. Cognitive processing, language typology,
and variation. Cognitive Science 4(5), 477 – 487.
DOI:10.1002/wcs.1294.</p>
<p>Tal, S., Smith, K., Culbertson, J., Grossmann, E., Anon, I.
2022. The impact of information structure on the emergence of
differential object marking: An experimental study. Cognitive
Science 46, e13119.</p>
<p>Taraldsen, T. 1980. On the NIC, vacuous application and the
that-trace filter. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics
Club.</p>
<p>Zipf, G. K. (1935). <em>The psycho-biology of language.</em> Houghton,
Mifflin.</p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>