26.4769, Calls: Lang Doc, Morphology, Phonology, Syntax, Typology/Italy

Tue Oct 27 19:22:15 UTC 2015

LINGUIST List: Vol-26-4769. Tue Oct 27 2015. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 26.4769, Calls: Lang Doc, Morphology, Phonology, Syntax, Typology/Italy

Moderators: linguist at linguistlist.org (Damir Cavar, Malgorzata E. Cavar)
Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org (Anthony Aristar, Helen Aristar-Dry, Sara Couture)
Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
              http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Ashley Parker <ashley at linguistlist.org>
================================================================

Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 15:21:56
From: Lidia Federica Mazzitelli [lidia.mazzitelli at uni-bremen.de]
Subject: Typology of Uralic Languages: Towards Better Comparability

Full Title: Typology of Uralic Languages: Towards Better Comparability 

Date: 31-Aug-2016 - 03-Sep-2016
Location: Naples, Italy 
Contact Person: Lidia Federica Mazzitelli
Meeting Email: lidia.mazzitelli at uni-bremen.de

Linguistic Field(s): Language Documentation; Morphology; Phonology; Syntax; Typology 

Call Deadline: 15-Nov-2015 

Meeting Description:

Convenors: Gerson Stefan Klumpp (Tartu),Lidia Federica Mazzitelli (Bremen),
Fedor Rozhanskiy (Tartu)

Uralic studies have a long established tradition that developed on the base of historical linguistics. Many disciplines that play an essential role in contemporary linguistics (e.g. phonology and typology) are younger than Uralistics, and integration between the study of Uralic languages and contemporary linguistic disciplines is often not sufficient. Consequently, Uralic studies have at least two weak sides:

- A lack of contemporary synchronic grammars based on modern linguistic theory that can be used by typologists. An obvious illustration can be found in WALS: most of the referenced Uralic grammars are crucially outdated.
- Many grammars of Uralic languages follow the old-style tradition, specific for a particular language. The degree of comparability between Uralic grammars is very low. In the Finnish tradition the case of the direct object is termed ''Accusative'', in the Estonian tradition ''Nominative/genitive.''

These weak sides have been realized by many researchers, and gave rise to new approaches and a recent “renovation” of Uralic studies. New contemporary grammars are being published (Winkler 2001, Siegl 2013, Nikolaeva 2014, Wilbur 201 5). Considerably more attention has been paid to typology, cf. the volume “Negation in Uralic languages” (Miestamo, Tamm & Wagner-Nagy 2015), and the  projects “Uralic Essive” (De Groot 2013) and “Oxford Guide to Uralic languages” (directed by M. Bakró-Nagy, J. Laakso & E. Skribnik), currently in progress.

The current workshop aims at bringing together linguists working on Uralic languages from the position of modern linguistic theory and typology. The main goal of the workshop is to increase the level of comparability of the Uralic languages, to promote the integration of Uralic studies into contemporary linguistics, to stimulate the dialogue between researchers of Uralic languages working on different language levels.

The topics to be addressed include (but are not restricted to) the following:

- the sounds of Uralic languages from the point of view of modern phonological and prosodic studies
- phonology-morphology interface in the Uralic languages
- revisiting morphological and syntactic categories of the Uralic languages
- new approaches to morphological and morphophonological studies of the Uralic languages
- argument structure and DOM/DSM in the Uralic languages
- questions of word order and information structure in the Uralic languages

Preference will be given to papers that compare several Uralic languages or dialects and aim at a uniform description of the data and promote comparability. We also welcome papers addressing a particular language that offer new approaches to data interpretation in light of contemporary linguistics, as well as papers comparing one or more Uralic languages with their neighbouring language(s).

References

De Groot, C. 2013. The typology of Uralic essive. Tomsk Journal of Linguistics and Anthropology 2/2, 119-123.
Miestamo, M.; Tamm, A. & Wagner-Nagy, B. 2015. Negation in Uralic Languages.  Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Nikolaeva, I. 2014. A grammar of Tundra Nenets. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Siegl, F. 2013. Materials on Forest Enets, an Indigenous Language of Northern Siberia.  Helsinki: SUS.
Wilbur, J. 2015. A grammar of Pite Saami. Berlin: Language Science Press.
Winkler, E. 2001. Udmurt. München: Lincom Europa.

Call for Papers:

We invite 20 minutes presentations (+ 8 minutes for discussion). Preliminary abstracts (300 words, DOC and/or PDF) should be sent to ALL the workshop organizers by November 15, 2015:

- Gerson Stefan Klumpp (Tartu): klumpp at ut.ee
- Lidia Federica Mazzitelli (Bremen): lidia.mazzitelli at uni-bremen.de
- Fedor Rozhanskiy (Tartu): handarey at yahoo.com

Accepted abstracts will be part of the workshop proposal to be submitted on November 25, 2015.

----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-26-4769	
----------------------------------------------------------
Visit LL's Multitree project for over 1000 trees dynamically generated
from scholarly hypotheses about language relationships:
          http://multitree.org/