Workshop: Variation and Change in Argument Realization

johanna.barddal at UIB.NO johanna.barddal at UIB.NO
Thu Oct 22 19:20:04 UTC 2009

First call for papers:

Workshop on "Variation and Change in Argument Realization" organized  
by Jóhanna Barðdal (University of Bergen) and Michela Cennamo  
(University of Naples Federico II)

Location: Capri and Naples, 28?30 May 2010

Invited speakers
?	Balthasar Bickel (University of Leipzig)
?	Miriam Fried (Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague)
?	Adam Ledgeway (University of Cambridge)
?	Ranko Matasovi? (University of Zagreb)
?	Nigel Vincent (University of Manchester)


Research on the nature of argument structure and the factors  
determining its encoding and representation has highlighted the  
complex interplay of semantic, syntactic and pragmatic factors that  
determine argument realization within and across languages (cf.  
Cennamo 2003, Levin and Rappaport Hovav 2005, Bentley 2006, Goldberg  
2006, Barðdal 2006, 2008, Ramchand 2008, Van Valin 2009, among  
others). The consensus view emerging from a large body of synchronic  
research acknowledges the key roles played by event-based notions such  
as aspect (e.g., telicity, incremental theme) and control, and  
inherent features of argument fillers, such as animacy and  
definiteness, in determining the mapping from the lexical semantic to  
the morphosyntactic planes. The existence of non-event based aspects  
in the encoding of arguments has also prompted current investigation  
of the contribution of the idiosyncratic (the root) and structural  
facets (the event-structure templates) of the meaning of verbs to  
argument realization, and the principles governing their integration  
(Rappaport Hovav 2008).

This workshop aims at exploring these issues from a diachronic and  
variational perspective (cf. Barðdal and Chelliah 2009, Cennamo 2009),  
bringing together different strands of research on event/argument  
structure, as reflected in the choice of invited speakers, and  
focusing on:

a) the applicability of current models, whether typological,  
projectionist, constructional, neo-constructional, co-compositional,  
and others, on actual diachronic changes and variational data from  
different domains, such as auxiliary selection, argument marking and  
linking, ditransitives, the conative, locative, (anti)causative  
alternation, etc.

b) the predictions they make as to the progression and actualization  
of change, for instance whether syntactic aspects are affected earlier  
by change than lexical aspects, the role played by pragmatic notions,  
frequency, etc.

c) the generalizations offered for recurrent patterns of variation and  
change, and the uniformity encountered.

Contributions are invited from scholars of different theoretical  
persuasions for discussion on the general and specific implications of  
different theoretical models on argument/event structure in a  
diachronic and/or variational perspective, including, but not limited  
to, the following:

?	voice
?	case-marking and grammatical relations
?	(in)transitive alternations
?	split intransitivity
?	existential/presentative constructions

Please send your abstracts of 500 words or less to the workshop's  
contact person: Eystein Dahl (Eystein.Dahl at Abstracts should  
be sent no later than 15 December 2009, preferably in pdf-format. A  
response on abstracts will be sent out no later than 20 January 2010.

   Barðdal, J. 2006. Construction-specific properties of syntactic  
subjects in Icelandic and German. Cognitive Linguistics 17 (1): 39-106.
   Barðdal, J. 2008. Productivity: Evidence from Case and Argument  
Structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Barðdal, J. and S. L. Chelliah (eds.). 2009. The Role of Semantic,  
Pragmatic, and Discourse Factors in the Development of Case.  
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Bentley, D. 2006. Split intransitivity in Italian. Berlin: Mouton  
de Gruyter.
   Cennamo, M. 2003. (In)transitivity and object marking: some current  
issues. In G. Fiorentino (ed.), Romance Objects, Berlin: Mouton de  
Gruyter, 49-104.
   Cennamo, M. 2009. Argument structure and alignment variations and  
changes in Late Latin. In Barðdal, J. and S. L. Chelliah (eds.),  
   Goldberg, A. E. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of  
Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Levin, B. and M. Rappaport Hovav. 2005. Argument Realization.  
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Ramchand, G. C. 2008. Verb Meaning and the Lexicon. Cambridge:  
Cambridge University Press.
   Rappaport Hovav, M. 2008. Lexicalized meaning and the internal  
temporal structure of events. In Rothstein (ed.), Crosslinguistic and  
Theoretical Approaches to the Semantics of Aspect. Amsterdam:  
Benjamins, 13-42.
   Van Valin, R. D. 2009. Lexical representation, co-composition, and  
linking syntax and semantics. J. Pustejovsky & P. Bullion (eds.), New  
Developments in the Generative Lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer. To appear.

Jóhanna Barðdal
Research Associate Professor
Department of Linguistic, Literary and Aesthetic Studies
University of Bergen
P.O. box 7805
NO-5020 Bergen
johanna.barddal at

Phone +47-55582438 (work)
Phone +47-55201117 (home)
Fax   +47-55589660 (work)

More information about the Lingtyp mailing list