19.2075, Calls: Typology/Netherlands; General Ling/Germany

Mon Jun 30 15:27:25 UTC 2008

LINGUIST List: Vol-19-2075. Mon Jun 30 2008. ISSN: 1068 - 4875.

Subject: 19.2075, Calls: Typology/Netherlands; General Ling/Germany

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Eastern Michigan U <aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Aristar-Dry, Eastern Michigan U <hdry at linguistlist.org>
Reviews: Randall Eggert, U of Utah  
         <reviews at linguistlist.org> 

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, 
and donations from subscribers and publishers.

Editor for this issue: F. Okki Kurniawan <okki at linguistlist.org>

As a matter of policy, LINGUIST discourages the use of abbreviations
or acronyms in conference announcements unless they are explained in
the text.

To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at 


Date: 30-Jun-2008
From: Alexandra Aikhenvald < a.y.aikhenvald at live.com >
Subject: Multiverb Constructions: a view from the Americas 

Date: 30-Jun-2008
From: Barbara Stiebels < stiebels at zas.gwz-berlin.de >
Subject: DGfS-workshop 'Linking of sentential arguments'


-------------------------Message 1 ---------------------------------- 
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:24:44
From: Alexandra Aikhenvald [a.y.aikhenvald at live.com]
Subject: Multiverb Constructions: a view from the Americas
E-mail this message to a friend:

Full Title: Multiverb Constructions: a view from the Americas 
Short Title: MCVA 

Date: 20-Oct-2008 - 20-Oct-2008
Location: Nijmegen, The Netherlands, Netherlands 
Contact Person: Alexandra Aikhenvald
Meeting Email: a.y.aikhenvald at live.com

Linguistic Field(s): Typology 

Call Deadline: 10-Sep-2008 

Meeting Description:

Multi-verb constructions: a view from the Americas

Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, La Trobe University, Australia
Pieter Muysken, Radboud University, Nijmegen

Date: 20 October 2008
Venue: Radboud University; MPI Nijmegen 

Call for Papers

This one-day workshop focuses on multi-verb constructions in languages of the
Americas. Our primary interest involves monoclausal multi-verb constructions
such as:
- Serial verb constructions understood a sequence of verbs which act together as
a single predicate, without any overt marker of coordination, subordination or
syntactic dependency of any other sort. Serial verb constructions are
monoclausal; their intonational properties are the same as those of a monoverbal
clause, and they have one tense, aspect and polarity value. Serial verb
constructions forming one phonological and one grammatical word are often called
verb compounding (see Aikhenvald 2006; Martins 2004; de Reuse 2006; Senft, in
press; Zavala 2000);
- Auxiliary verb constructions consisting of a combination of an auxiliary,
defined as a closed subclass of verbs which (a) form part of one complex
predicate in combination with verb from a large open class; (b) take the person,
number, gender, aspect, tense, mood and modality specifications; and (c) impart
a modal or an aspectual meaning to the whole construction (see Payne and Payne
1990: 413-16; Adelaar and Muysken 2004). In other languages (e.g. Arawá: Dixon
2004), auxiliaries bear inflectional markers for verbs which cannot take
inflection directly.
- Light verb or support verb constructions, consisting of a non-verbal element
(including ideophones and onomatopoeia) which combines with the verb for it to
be able to act as a predicate (as in Cavineña: Guillaume 2004). 
- Converb constructions consisting of a dependent verb form and an inflected
verb and acting as a single predicate (as in Ometo and Wolaitta, both
Afroasiatic: Amha and Dimmendaal 2006)
- Bipartite stems consisting of two morphemes, at least one of which marks
manner, means or location/direction, and cannot occur on its own, having
grammaticalized from a verbal root (see Jacobsen 1980; DeLancey 1999).
Parameters of variation include: (i) semantic and morphosyntactic classes of
verbs involved in the formation of a multi-verb structure; (ii) argument
structure of components and of the whole multi-verb construction (this is
particularly relevant for serial verbs); (iii) reinterpretation and potential
lexicalization; (iv) functions and meanings; and (v) polyfunctionality (the same
verb occurring as an auxiliary and as a support verb).
- Multiclausal structures such as subordinate clauses and clause chains may
develop into monoclausal multi-verb constructions (see Davies 1998, on the
formation of Chocktaw progressive). Components of monoclausal multi-verb
structures may develop into affixal markers of aspect, valency changing,
associated motion, and more.
- It has been noted that serial verb constructions show semantic and functional
similarities with other multi-verb constructions, both monoclausal and
biclausal. These similarities justify considering each multi-verb construction
as part of a multidimensional continuum. Diachronically speaking, links can be
established connecting focal points on this continuum (so, for instance, the
existence of special marker of serial verb constructions in Urarina (Olawsky
2006: 629-50) indicates that they may have come from multi-verb structures of a
different, non-serial, kind). 
- Last but not least: we endeavour to address the issue of diffusability of
multi-verb constructions, and their correlations with other areal features which
can be established within the Americas.

Selected References:
Adelaar, Willem F. H. with Pieter C. Muysken. 2004. The languages of the Andes.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2006. 'Serial verb constructions in typological
perspective', pp. 1-68 of Serial verb constructions: a cross-linguistic
typology, edited by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon. Oxford: Oxford UP.
Amha, Azeb and Gerrit J. Dimmendaal. 2006. 'Verbal compounding in Wolaitta', pp.
319-37 of Serial verb constructions: a cross-linguistic typology, edited by
Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon. Oxford: Oxford UP.
Davies, William D. 1998. 'Time. switch-reference, and the Choctaw progressive',
pp. 173-9 of Studies in American Indian Languages. Description and Theory,
edited by Leanne Hinton and Pamela Munro. Berkeley: University of California Press. 
DeLancey, Scott. 1999. 'Lexical prefixs and the bipartite stem construction in
Klamath'. International Journal of American Linguistics 65: 55-83. 
Dixon, R. M. W. 2004. The Jarawara language of Southern Amazonia. Oxford: Oxford UP.
Guillaume, Antoine. 2004. A grammar of Cavineña, an Amazonian language of
Northern Bolivia. PhD thesis, La Trobe University. 
Jacobsen, William H. Jr. 1980. 'Washo bipartite verb stems', pp. 85-99 of
American Indian and Indoeuropean studies. Papers in Honor of Madison S. Beeler,
edited by Kathryn Klar, Margaret Langdon and Shirley Silver. The Hague: Mouton
Martins, Silvana A. 2004. Fonologia e Gramática Dâw. Amsterdam: LOT.
Olawsky, Knut. 2006. A grammar of Urarina. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 
Payne, Doris L. and Thomas E. Payne. 1990. 'Yagua', pp. 249-474 of Handbook of
Amazonian languages, volume 2, edited by Desmond C. Derbyshire and Geoffrey K.
Pullum. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
de Reuse, Willem J. 2006. 'Serial verbs in Lakota (Siouan)', pp. 301-18 of
Serial verb constructions: a cross-linguistic typology, edited by Alexandra Y.
Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Senft, Gunter (in press) Serial Verb Constructions in Austronesian and Papuan
Languages. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
Zavala, Roberto. 2000. 'Inversion and other topics in the grammar of Olutec
(Mixean)'. PhD Dissertation, University of Oregon (Eugene).

Abstracts (no longer than a page) are invited, for 30 minutes talks (20 minutes
presentations and 10 minutes discussion). We welcome papers on any languages
from the Americas. Abstracts can be sent electronically to
a.y.aikhenvald at live.com, p.muysken at let.ru.nl and gunter.senft at mpi.nl before 10
September 2008, mentioning ''Abstract Multi-Verb'' in the Subject slot.

-------------------------Message 2 ---------------------------------- 
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:24:53
From: Barbara Stiebels [stiebels at zas.gwz-berlin.de]
Subject: DGfS-workshop 'Linking of sentential arguments'
E-mail this message to a friend:

Full Title: DGfS-workshop 'Linking of sentential arguments' 

Date: 04-Mar-2009 - 06-Mar-2009
Location: University of Osnabrück, Germany 
Contact Person: Tonjes Veenstra
Meeting Email: dgfs.2009_ag12 at zas.gwz-berlin.de

Linguistic Field(s): General Linguistics 

Call Deadline: 17-Aug-2008 

Meeting Description:

This workshop is part of the annual conference of the German Linguistics Society
(DGfS) at the University of Osnabrück
(http://www.blogs.uni-osnabrueck.de/dgfs2009-de/arbeitsgruppen/). This workshop
will deal with the linking of sentential arguments and the role of diathetic
operations in the introduction or elimination of sentential arguments. 

Call for Papers

DGfS-workshop Linking of Sentential Arguments

Whereas there exists a rich and abundant literature on how DP-arguments are
licensed and linked, the licensing of sentential arguments (i.e. arguments of
predicates such as 'say', 'promise', 'threaten', 'ask' etc.) has never been on
the top of the research agenda, one of the reasons being that sentential
arguments normally do not show their Case-marking on their sleeves. This seems
to depend in part on what type of subordination is involved. Thus, finite
sentential arguments can sometimes be accompanied by a pronominal correlate
(e.g. 'dar-auf hoffen' (there-on hope)), whereas nominalized sentential
complements normally receive Case-marking. When Case does show up in these
contexts, we seem to find a similar range of possible Case-markings as with
DP-arguments (canonical vs. non-canonical case, e.g. ACC vs GEN in the position
of the direct object). This leads to the following questions:

Q1: To what extent is the licensing and linking of sentential arguments similar
to the linking of DP-arguments? Are the same mechanisms at work?;
Q2: How are sentential arguments licensed in other linking systems (e.g. active
systems, inverse systems, etc.)?

In languages with subject and object agreement, sentential arguments can also be
indexed by a pronominal affix. There seem to be some additional restrictions,
however. For instance, sentential arguments can only be indexed by a pronominal
affix as long as they receive canonical Case (no oblique Case):

Q3: What constraints on the indexing of sentential arguments are there

Since sentential arguments solely refer to inanimate entities, we do not expect
to find effects of differential object marking (DOM) that are correlated to
sortal features (e.g. accusative marking linked to animacy). Nevertheless, it is
conceivable to find DOM effects linked to referential features (e.g. specificity
in the case of desiderative predicates such as wish/want); likewise, the
polarity of the matrix clause (as in the genitive of negation in Slavic
languages) may influence the linking of the sentential argument.

Q4: Do we find DOM-like phenomena with sentential arguments?

In addition, virtually nothing is discussed in the literature about the role of
diathetic operations in the introduction and elimination of sentential
arguments. For instance, applicatives have only be discussed regarding the
introduction of NP/DP arguments.

Q5: Do we find special diathetic operations in the introduction or elimination
of sentential arguments? Can voice markers that target NP/DP arguments affect
the realization of sentential arguments indirectly?

Finally, the concrete realisation of sentential arguments is highly relevant for
restructuring processes in the syntax, because, as argued by Sabel (1996),
clause union only seems to be possible when the embedded complement is
canonically realised:

Q6: To what extent are syntactic processes affected by the structural
realisation of sentential arguments?

We invite papers addressing the issues mentioned above. We are interested in
different theoretical approaches to these issues, in descriptions of linking
patterns in particular languages, as well as a discussion of the linking of
sentential arguments in typologically distinct linking systems. 

An author may submit at most one single and one joint abstract. Abstracts should
be at most 2 pages in 12-point font with 2.5 cm margins, including data and

Please submit your abstract as pdf file (named '<surname>_dgfs2009_ag12.pdf')

Deadline: August 17, 2008
Notification of acceptance: September 15

Barbara Stiebels (ZAS Berlin)
Tonjes Veenstra (ZAS Berlin)


LINGUIST List: Vol-19-2075	


More information about the Linguist mailing list