31.2291, Calls: Gen Ling, Morphology, Semantics, Syntax, Typology/France

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-31-2291. Thu Jul 16 2020. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 31.2291, Calls: Gen Ling, Morphology, Semantics, Syntax, Typology/France

Moderator: Malgorzata E. Cavar (linguist at linguistlist.org)
Student Moderator: Jeremy Coburn
Managing Editor: Becca Morris
Team: Helen Aristar-Dry, Everett Green, Sarah Robinson, Lauren Perkins, Nils Hjortnaes, Yiwen Zhang, Joshua Sims
Jobs: jobs at linguistlist.org | Conferences: callconf at linguistlist.org | Pubs: pubs at linguistlist.org

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

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

Editor for this issue: Lauren Perkins <lauren at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 13:00:38
From: Eric Corre [eric.corre at sorbonne-nouvelle.fr]
Subject: NAMED 2020: De/constructing motion events

 
Full Title: NAMED 2020: De/constructing motion events 

Date: 01-Jul-2021 - 03-Jul-2021
Location: PARIS, France 
Contact Person: Eric Corre
Meeting Email: eric.corre at sorbonne-nouvelle.fr
Web Site: http://motionevents.sciencesconf.org/ 

Linguistic Field(s): General Linguistics; Morphology; Semantics; Syntax; Typology 

Call Deadline: 04-Dec-2020 

Meeting Description:

***COVID-19 UPDATE:  Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, this symposium, which was
scheduled for December 2020, will be postponed until July 1-3, 2021. The
submission deadline has been extended accordingly***

The expression of motion events is a multifaceted phenomenon that lies at the
confluence of morphology, lexical semantics, syntax, discourse and pragmatics.
Recent research has probed into its composite nature, revealing how it is
underpinned by language-specific constellations of interacting factors
(Beavers, Levin et al. 2010). The aim of this conference is to further explore
these factors, with particular emphasis on the role of the verb and
crosslinguistic comparison, while encouraging different approaches (Levin
1993, Aurnague 2011, Stosic 2019) to share their views on the matter. Possible
topics are given below:

 - Lexical semantics: what are possible motion predicates? Is there a strict
path/manner complementarity constraint at work realized in two distinct
lexical classes (Levin & R. Hovav 2010, Levin 2011), or is it preferable to
adopt a finer-grained conception of manner, by isolating certain features or
parameters (like force, speed, etc.) which can make “change of placement”
(i.e., manner of motion) verbs become “change of basic locative relation”
(i.e., direction motion) verbs? (Aurnague 2011, Stosic 2019, Sarda 2019)?
Consequently, what exactly is manner? What is a possible verb of manner of
motion? Are there constraints on the type of manner parameters and their
combination? Are there distinct verb types across languages?

  - The distributed expression of motion: how do different morphosyntactic
tools, syntax and pragmatic factors conspire to yield a motion interpretation?
To what extent does the morphological potential of a language interact with
the locus of semantic component of motion (cf. Sinha & Kuteva 1995)? How can
we compare languages with rich and poor morphological possibilities with
respect to the expression of motion? What impact does the compactness
facilitated by a rich morphology have on the cognitive representation of
motion? How does such an approach interact with Talmy (1972, 1985, 2000)’s
typological division between Verb-framed and Satellite-framed languages? Are
there languages that use discourse and pragmatic strategies to encode motion
components beyond the morphosyntactic domain?

 - Diachrony and linguistic change: how do path verbs or manner verbs emerge?
Are there cases where verbs having a path component develop a manner component
through the course of time, instead of the opposite? It would be interesting
to examine languages that changed from a Verb-framed to a Satellite-framed
pattern of motion expression (or vice versa).

 - The goal /source asymmetry or goal bias (Ikegami 1987, Stefanowitsch &
Rohde 200,) is a phenomenon both linguistically and cognitively well observed.
In a wide range of languages, there is a preference for goal over source
expression (Verkerk 2017). Beyond this general trend, further descriptions are
needed to clarify (especially in verb-framed languages where the path is
encoded by verbs) the combinatory constraints between the semantics of verbs
and prepositional phrases, and how it is reflected in the different statuses
that locative PPs can receive (Aurnague 2015, Sarda 2019)?


Call for Papers:

We welcome proposals for talks on any of the topics related to motion events
that are described above.

Poster Sessions:
A session where the participants are allowed 3 min each to present their
posters is included in the schedule.

Abstract Submission:
Abstracts should be anonymous and sent via sciencesconf.org before December 4,
2020. They should correspond to the themes of the conference, be 350-500
word-long (plus references), in English, and specify the methodology and
results of the study.




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

***************************    LINGUIST List Support    ***************************
 The 2019 Fund Drive is under way! Please visit https://funddrive.linguistlist.org
  to find out how to donate and check how your university, country or discipline
     ranks in the fund drive challenges. Or go directly to the donation site:
               https://iufoundation.fundly.com/the-linguist-list-2019

                        Let's make this a short fund drive!
                Please feel free to share the link to our campaign:
                    https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-31-2291	
----------------------------------------------------------