Call WS Resultatives. Typology, History, Areality and Cognition at the PLM 2011

Bernhard Waelchli bernhard.waelchli at ISW.UNIBE.CH
Mon Dec 20 14:34:49 UTC 2010

1-3, 2011)

*Resultatives. Typology, History, Areality and Cognition*

Host conference: 42nd Poznan' Linguistic Meeting
Venue: Poznan', Poland
Date: May 1-3, 2011
Convenors: Nicole Nau (Poznan') & Krzysztof Stron'ski (Poznan') & 
Bernhard Wälchli (Bern)
Deadline for abstracts: January 21, 2011
Abstract submission: See (slots: 30 minutes)
Notification of acceptance: February 25, 2011

Workshop description

Languages of the world employ different means to express states which 
result from a previous action. The TYPOLOGY of resultatives has been 
investigated especially in the seminal work edited by V. Nedjalkov (1988 
[1983]) with a major focus on languages of Eurasia. Especially important 
is the vast literature on Slavic languages (e.g., Giger 2003, ?azin'ski 
2001, Wiemer & Giger 2005). However, in many non-Eurasian languages, 
resultatives have not yet been described. Hence it is not astonishing 
that the core model of resultatives in the typological literature 
corresponds to the Indo-European prototype of a "stative auxiliary... 
and the past and/or passive participle" (Bybee et al. 1994: 67-68). A 
major aim of this workshop is to explore the cross-linguistic diversity 
of resultative constructions.

Resultatives play a crucial role in GRAMMATICALIZATION where they have 
been found to be closely related to grammatical categories as perfect, 
passive, durative and progressive (e.g., Bybee et al 1994, Ebert 1995, 
Nac(eva-Marvanova 2010). Their interaction with these categories is 
instantiated by various morphosyntactic alignments. There are still many 
unanswered questions regarding the evolution of resultative 
constructions even though some of the solutions have gained wide 
acceptance (e.g. the passive/resulative to ergative shift in 
Indo-Iranian; see, e.g., Pirejko 1968). However, resultatives are not 
simply a grammatical category, they are strongly constrained lexically. 
Of crucial interest are also lexicalization paths of resultatives, for 
instance in the domains of predicative possession and positional verbs.

Further it has been observed that resultative constructions often 
exhibit AREAL PATTERNS. According to Haase (1992: 250) -- shown on 
evidence from Basque -- resultatives are categories "prone to diffuse 
through contact". A further important issue is language-internal 
variation. Miller (2004) argues that there is a wide variety of 
resultative constructions restricted to spoken varieties of English, 
such as _that is me seen it_ or _we were stood outside the pub_.

Last but not least, resultatives are of great interest from a COGNITIVE 
LINGUISTIC perspective in the context of Talmy's (2000: 101) claim that 
fictive motion "occurs preponderantly more than does fictive 
stationariness coupled with factive motion".

The aim of this workshop is to bring together scholars working on 
different aspects of resultative constructions from typological, 
historical, areal and cognitive perspectives. We welcome papers dealing 
with all aspects of resultatives, especially the following:
.         the interaction between resultatives and with related 
grammatical tense, aspect and voice categories as well as their 
lexicalization paths;
         the interface between resultative constructions and their 
argument structure;
.         lexical constraints pertaining to the formation of resultatives;
.         the evolution of resultatives
.         descriptions of resultative constructions in languages outside 
Eurasia, field linguists' approaches to resultatives;
.         areal implications of resultative constructions;
.         cognitive linguistic implications of resultative constructions

Selected references
Bybee, Joan & Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca (1994). The Evolution of 
Grammar: Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. 
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ebert, Karen (1995). Ambiguous perfect-progressive forms across 
languages. In Bertinetto, Pier Marco et al. (eds.), Temporal Reference, 
Aspect and Actionality. Vol. 2: Typological Perspectives. Torino: Rosenberg.
Giger Markus 2003. Resultativa im modernen Tschechischen. Bern -- 
Berlin: Peter Lang.
?azin'ski Marek. 2001. 'Was für ein Perfekt gibt es im modernen 
Polnisch?' Linguistic Online. 8, 1/01. 37-47.
Miller, Jim (2004). Problems for typology. Perfects and resultatives in 
spoken and non-standard English and Russian. In Kortmann, Bernd (ed.) 
Dialectology meets Typology. Dialect Grammar from a Cross-Linguistic 
Perspective, 305-334. Berlin: Mouton de Grutyer.
Nac(eva-Marvanova Mira 2010. 'Grammaticalization and Verbal Structures 
(The Case of Analytic Perfect)'. Linguistica Pragensia 20. 2010/1.
Nedjalkov Vladimir P. 1988. Typology of Resultative Construction. 
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Translation 
of Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. (ed.) (1983). Tipologija rezul'tativnyx 
konstrukcij. Leningrad: Nauka.
Pirejko Lija A., 1968. Osnovnyje voprosy ergativnosti na materiale 
indoiranskich jazykov. Moskva: Izdatel'stvo 'Nauka'.
Talmy, Leonard (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol. II: Typology 
and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wiemer Björn & Giger Markus 2005. Resultativa in den nordslavischen und 
baltischen Sprachen. Munchen: LINCOM.

Bernhard Waelchli
Dept. of Linguistics
University of Bern
Laenggasstrasse 49
CH-3000 Bern 9

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Lingtyp mailing list