29.321, Calls: Morphology, Phonology, Syntax/Peru

Thu Jan 18 22:05:00 UTC 2018

LINGUIST List: Vol-29-321. Thu Jan 18 2018. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 29.321, Calls: Morphology, Phonology, Syntax/Peru

Moderators: linguist at linguistlist.org (Damir Cavar, Malgorzata E. Cavar)
Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org (Helen Aristar-Dry, Robert Coté,
                                   Michael Czerniakowski)
Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

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

Editor for this issue: Kenneth Steimel <ken at linguistlist.org>
================================================================

Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 17:04:45
From: Rik van Gijn [erik.vangijn at uzh.ch]
Subject: Morphosyntactic Misfits: Clitics, Particles, and Non-canonical Affixes in the Languages of the Americas

Full Title: Morphosyntactic Misfits: Clitics, Particles, and Non-canonical Affixes in the Languages of the Americas 
Short Title: MISFITS 

Date: 23-Jul-2018 - 25-Jul-2018
Location: Lima, Peru 
Contact Person: Rik van Gijn
Meeting Email: misfitslima2018 at gmail.com

Linguistic Field(s): Morphology; Phonology; Syntax 

Call Deadline: 15-Apr-2018 

Meeting Description:

Convenors: Roberto Zariquiey (PUCP Lima) & Rik van Gijn (University of Zurich)
Keynote speaker: Balthasar Bickel (University of Zurich)

In the traditional, dichotomic division of coding systems in language between
morphology and syntax, linguistic units are ideally either morphological or
syntactic in nature. This perspective on linguistic organization has generated
a vast literature in which linguistic units are classified as one or the other
based on checklists (see e.g. Dixon & Aikhenvald 2002, Haspelmath 2011 for
discussion). The main idea expressed in those checklists is that relations
between units in a morphological construction are tight and rigid, whereas
relations between units in a syntactic construction are loose and flexible.

It has been recognized by many scholars for a long time (e.g. Dixon 1977,
Zwicky 1977) that the dichotomic approach is problematic in that there are
many elements that do not fit neatly into one of the two categories. This is
mainly due to the fact that rigidity and tightness are measured across
different dimensions (Bickel 2007). A prototypical morphological element, for
instance, is often described as having the following characteristics, that
span a variety of dimensions.

- Lexically restricted host selection
- Phonological interaction with host (prosodic, morphophonological)
- Morphological interaction with host
- Rigid positioning with respect to its host
- Non-manipulable by syntax

Because of this multi-dimensionality, even if we can define prototypical or
idealized morphological and syntactic units, elements can deviate from these
idealizations in many ways (see e.g. Anderson 2006, Spencer & Luís 2014, Van
Gijn & Zúñiga 2016, Bickel & Zúñiga 2017). This has led to considerable
terminological confusion, in which elements with similar behavior are
classified differently and elements with different behavior are classified in
the same way. Testimony to the terminological confusion are, furthermore, the
many different terms that have been proposed for these ''morphosyntactic
misfits'', which include simple clitics, special clitics, phrasal clitics,
phrasal affixes, non-cohering affixes, Wackernagel clitics, Wackernagel
affixes, clause-final particles, clause-initial particles, Wackernagel
particles, etc.

For the Americanist descriptive tradition, with its many (poly)synthetic
languages this problem is particularly relevant, and likely to frustrate
fruitful morphological comparison across languages. At the same time, South
American languages can be highly informative to shaping our ideas of the
possible variation within this group of so-called morphosyntactic misfits (see
e.g. Van Gijn & Zúñiga 2014). 

Anderson, S. 2005. Aspects of the theory of clitics. Oxford: OUP.
Bickel, B. 2007. Typology in the 21st century: major current developments.
Linguistic Typology 11. 239-251.
Bickel, B. & F. Zúñiga. 2017. The 'word' in polysynthetic languages:
phonological and syntactic challenges. In M. Fortescue, M. Mithun & N. Evans
(eds.), The handbook of polysynthesis, 158-185. Oxford: OUP.
Dixon, R. 1977. Some phonological rules in Yidiny. Linguistic Inquiry 8(1),
1-34.
Dixon, R. & A. Aikhenvald, (Eds.) 2002. Word: a cross-linguistic typology.
Cambridge: CUP.
Gijn, R. van & F. Zúñiga. 2014. Word and the americanist perspective.
Morphology 24 (3). 135-160. 
Haspelmath, M. 2011. The indeterminacy of word segmentation and the nature of
morphology and syntax. Folia Linguistica 45(1), 31-80.   
Spencer, A. & A. Luís. 2012. The canonical clitic. In D. Brown, M. Chumakina &
G. Corbett (eds.), Canonical morphology and syntax, 123-150. Oxford: OUP. 
Zwicky, A. 1977. On clitics. Bloomington: IULC.

Call for Papers:

We call for papers that, rather than trying to classify elements, focus on
highlighting the parameters of variation within a language or across
languages. Questions we would like to address include the following (although
they are not restricted to this list):

- Is the dichotomic distinction between morphological and syntactic elements
sufficient to describe the variation of morphosyntactic units of a language or
language family?
- To what extent are notions such as ''word'', ''affix'', ''clitic'',
''particle'' useful for comparative or descriptive purposes? 
- What parameters are required to describe the variation among morphosyntactic
units in a language or language family?
- How are these parameters distributed over different elements in a language
or language families?
- How do properties of morphosyntactic units evolve diachronically?
- How do properties of morphosyntactic units interact with their
borrowability?
- What inconsistencies are found in descriptions of morphosyntactic units
across languages and how can they be reconciled?

Please send your abstract to misfitslima2018 at gmail.com before 15 April 2018.
Notification will be given on 25 April 2018.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-29-321	
----------------------------------------------------------