31.2972, Calls: Hist Ling, Semantics, Typology/Switzerland

Thu Oct 1 15:46:33 UTC 2020

LINGUIST List: Vol-31-2972. Thu Oct 01 2020. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 31.2972, Calls: Hist Ling, Semantics, Typology/Switzerland

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, 01 Oct 2020 11:46:18
From: Benjamin Brosig [benjamin.brosig at isw.unibe.ch]
Subject: Evidentiality 2.0: Integrating egophoricity, focusing on equipollent contrasts, and re-examining visual evidentials

Full Title: Evidentiality 2.0: Integrating egophoricity, focusing on equipollent contrasts, and re-examining visual evidentials 

Date: 05-Sep-2021 - 06-Sep-2021
Location: Bern, Switzerland 
Contact Person: Marius Zemp
Meeting Email: marius.zemp at isw.unibe.ch
Web Site: https://www.isw.unibe.ch/forschung/workshops/workshop_evidentiality_20/index_ger.html 

Linguistic Field(s): Historical Linguistics; Semantics; Typology 

Call Deadline: 31-Dec-2020 

Meeting Description:

The project ''Evidentiality in time and space'' (Benjamin Brosig, Marius Zemp,
Fernando Zúñiga) at the Institute of Linguistics of the University of Bern is
organizing this workshop from 5-Sept-2021 to 6-Sept-2021 with the intention of
bringing together researchers working on different evidentiality systems to
address the status of egophoricity vis-a-vis evidentiality, the role of
evidential oppositions, and the definition of visual evidentials.

Following Willet (1988) and Aikhenvald (2004, 2018), most accounts of
evidentiality systems throughout the world exclude markers which are ''used
when the speaker was the agent of the action reported'' because ''the source
of evidence does not seem to be their primary meaning'' (Willet 1988: 91).
However, these markers may still function as ''the linguistic means of
indicating how the speaker obtained the information on which s/he bases an
assertion'', i.e. to what Willet (1988: 55) identifies as the common thread in
all previously expressed views on evidentiality. Accordingly, Willet’s
exclusion of markers occurring with speaker subjects may have been
unjustified, and we suggest re-including them, which would then essentially
correspond to analyzing markers commonly called ''egophoric'' as evidentials
(Tournadre 1991; Floyd et al. 2018).

Egophoric markers form equipollent oppositions with other evidentials in
languages from all regions for which grammaticalized evidentiality has been
described: the Greater Himalayan Region (GHR, see below), the New Guinea
Highlands (San Roque & Loughnane 2012), the Caucasus (Creissels 2008), and the
Americas (e.g., for Tucanoan languages, see Barnes 1984, Stenzel 2008;
Barbacoan: Dickinson 2000, Curnow 2002; and Pomoan: Oswalt 1986, McLendon
2003). As contrasting evidentials appear to be defined against each other at
least in the GHR, we argue that the inclusion of egophoric markers is crucial
for an adequate account of such evidential contrasts. In languages of the GHR,
we can distinguish the following types of equipollent evidential contrasts
(for a few details on these contrasts, see
https://www.isw.unibe.ch/unibe/portal/fak_historisch/dsl/isw/content/e41142/e4
1180/e1002569/CallforPapersEvidentiality2.0kurz_ger.pdf) 
The goal of the workshop is to discuss and develop this tentative typology by
taking into consideration evidentiality systems from all regions of the world:
 - Direct vs. indirect (past tense markers)
 - Factual vs. immediate (existential copulas)
 - High vs. low degree of personal involvement (equational copulas)
 - Internal (conjunct) vs. external (disjunct) (different tenses in different
languages)

The inclusion of egophorics as evidentials not only allows us to recognize
several different types of such evidentials. It also reveals that what has
been viewed as a characteristic of egophorics and conjunct-disjunct
oppositions (Floyd et al. 2018: 2–6), namely that these markers anticipate the
perspective of the addressee in a question and reflect the perspective of the
source in a reported speech clause (i.e. of the ''informant''), characterizes
all equipollent evidential contrasts found in the GHR (see Zemp 2020: 31–2).
The findings of San Roque et al. (2017) suggest that this also applies to
evidentials in other parts of the world.

Call for Papers: 

We invite scholars to (re-)investigate evidential systems from all around the
world and to clarify the meaning and role of each evidential (X) within these
systems by seeking answers to questions such as the following:

 - Is X defined against another (or even more than one) evidential?
 - Does X have an inherent tense/aspect-value? If so, does it share this value
with a contrasting construction (Y)? Is there any evidence that X and Y may
have originally had different tense/aspect-values?
 - If X occurs in questions and/or in reported speech, whose perspective does
it reflect there?
 - Does X predominantly occur when the informant is the subject, and
exceptionally when s/he is not? Or does X predominantly occur when the
informant is not the subject, and exceptionally when s/he is? Under what
circumstances do these uses arise?
 - Does X have cognates? If so, is it possible to diachronically account for
how it may have developed?

We invite scholars also to re-investigate constructions previously analyzed as
''visual evidentials'', as this label may not always be justified. Many
alleged ''visual evidentials'' occur in statements in which the speaker is the
subject (for Amazonian languages, see Barnes 1984: 259; Malone 1988: 127–8;
Miller 1999: 65; Aikhenvald 2003: 293; Stenzel 2008: 412), but according to
none of these authors do the constructions in question convey that the speaker
looks at her/his own action from an outside perspective (which we would expect
from visual evidentials).

Abstracts (approx. 500 words, excluding references) should be sent to Marius
Zemp (marius.zemp at isw.unibe.ch) by 31 December 2020. Notification of
acceptance/rejection will be given by 15 February 2021. Presentations should
be 30 minutes, plus 10 minutes for discussion.

Participation is free of charge. Details on the social program will follow
later on. Travel and accommodation costs will be borne by the participants.
The organizers are currently checking whether travel support for participants
in need of such might be possible. If applicable, please contact the
organizers.

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

***************************    LINGUIST List Support    ***************************
 The 2020 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://crowdfunding.iu.edu/the-linguist-list

                        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-31-2972	
----------------------------------------------------------