[Lingtyp] Workshop at ICHL22, 27-31 July 2015, Naples - Space in diachrony: asymmetries in the space domain and their developments

Silvia Luraghi luraghi at unipv.it
Mon Nov 3 15:56:30 UTC 2014

>Apologies for cross-posting
>We invite abstract for presentation at the 
>Workshop: Space in diachrony: asymmetries in the 
>space domain and their developments, to be held 
>during ICHL22, 27-31 July 2015, Naples
>Silvia Luraghi, University of Pavia
>Tatiana Nikitina, CNRS
>Chiara Zanchi, University of Pavia
>The workshop addresses changes in the coding of 
>spatial relations, with a focus on the coding of 
>similarities and differences among spatial 
>relations, or among variants of the same spatial 
>relation, in order to better understand the 
>nature of asymmetries in the encoding of spatial 
>relations and shed light on the relationship 
>between goals, sources, paths, and static 
>locations. Topics that we would like to discuss 
>include the source-goal asymmetry, differential 
>marking of spatial relations, polysemy or lack 
>of polysemy among markers of spatial relations, 
>and the related diachronic developments.
>    * Abstracts must be submitted directly 
> following the ICHL guidelines at 
> <mailto:infoichl22 at unina.it>infoichl22 at unina.it
>    * Please, specify the name of the workshop in your email.
>    * Further information concerning the format 
> of subissions: 
> http://www.ichl22.unina.it/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=15&Itemid=137&lang=it
>    * Submission deadline: 30 January 2015. 
> Notifications will be sent by 30 March 2015
>Workshop description
>Asymmetries between goals and sources
>Recent research has demonstrated a number of 
>differences in the encoding of goals and sources 
>of motion. In general, goals of motion are 
>expressed more frequently and in more 
>fine-grained ways than sources 
>& Rohde 2004; 
>& Zheng 2007, inter alia). The asymmetry also 
>shows up in more subtle syntactic phenomena: 
>unlike sources, which often behave as adjuncts, 
>goals tend to share properties with verbal 
>arguments, and they are also more likely than 
>sources to be incorporated in the argument 
>structure of verbal applicatives (Baker 1988; 
>Filip 2003). Patterns of polysemy within systems 
>of spatial marking also point in the same 
>direction: static locations are often coded by 
>the same markers as goals of motion, and in a 
>way distinct from sources (Blake 1977, Noonan 
>2009, Nikitina 2009, Pantcheva 2010, Zwarts 
>2010). Not that this pattern of polysemy means 
>that diachronic mergers of source and location 
>are not attested; much to the contrary, 
>individual locative markers – such as French 
>dedans ‘inside’ – often go back to ablative 
>expressions, suggesting an earlier 
>ablative-locative transfer (Mackenzie 1978 with 
>examples from the Indo-European language phylum, 
>Israeli Hebrew, and Austronesian languages). 
>What seems clear from the evidence adduced by 
>Mackenzie, as well as from other scholars (e.g. 
>Bennett 1989, Nikitina & Spano 2014, Luraghi 
>2009 and 2010a), is that once a marker acquires 
>the locative meaning, it loses the original 
>ablative meaning. Thus, while the extension from 
>source to location is attested, polysemy tends 
>to be avoided. Note, however, that special types 
>of landmarks (spatial referents, human beings) 
>often allow some overlap in the use of ablative 
>and locative encoding, and can be at the origin 
>of ablative-locative transfers (Eckhoff, 
>Thomason, de Swart  2013, Luraghi 2009 and 
>2014). What accounts for the difference between 
>the observed synchronic patterns of spatial 
>encoding, which tend to conflate static 
>locations and goals, and the frequently attested 
>individual instances of ablative-locative 
>syncretism? How do ablative-locative transfers 
>come about? How do different types of 
>goal-source asymmetry develop historically?
>Differential marking of landmarks
>The encoding of certain spatial relations 
>depends on the type of landmark, and 
>non-conventional landmarks (e.g. human beings) 
>often require special types of encoding (Luraghi 
>2011). With time, such differential marking may 
>give rise to markers that are no longer 
>obviously related to the original spatial 
>concept. For example, diachronically comitative 
>markers seem to arise from markers of static 
>location; however, synchronic 
>locative-comitative polysemy seems to be 
>avoided, just like the locative-ablative 
>polysemy. What is the possible relation between 
>the comitative, which implies the simultaneous 
>involvement of two entities (often human beings) 
>in a single event, and the locative, which 
>implies physical coincidence or at least 
>proximity? More research is needed on the 
>diachronic relation between spatial and 
>comitative markers, as at present, most evidence 
>comes from Indo-European languages (Stolz, 
>Stroh, Urdze 2006; Luraghi 2014). If location 
>indeed functions as a source of comitatives 
>cross-linguistically, what accounts for the 
>virtual absence of synchronic polysemy between 
>the two semantic roles?  And more in general, 
>how do patterns of differential marking of 
>landmarks develop and what are their 
>conditioning factors? What types of spatial 
>relation are more likely to produce such asymmetries?
>Asymmetries in the encoding of path
>As compared to sources and goals of motion, the 
>role of path remains largely understudied. In 
>the light of cross-linguistic coding tendencies, 
>goal (allative), source/origin (ablative), and 
>(static) location (locative) seem to be more 
>‘basic’ spatial relations than path. As argued 
>in Stolz (1992: 30), there is a tendency for 
>case marking related to spatial relations to 
>exhibit ‘Dreigliedrigkeit’, i.e. a tripartite 
>structure featuring dedicated coding devices for 
>location, direction and source. Indeed, path can 
>often be coded through cases/adpositions that 
>usually indicate location, as in English Mary 
>walks in the field. / The child is running in 
>the street. How are different kinds of path 
>encoded, and where does this encoding come from? 
>How is the distinction between unidirectional 
>and multidirectional paths represented in 
>different languages, and how does it develop historically?
>Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of 
>grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
>Bennett, David C. 1989. Ablative-locative 
>transfers: evidence from Slovene and 
>Serbo-Croat. Oxford Slavonic Papers 22: 133-154.
>Blake, Barry J. 1977. Case marking in Australian 
>languages. No. 23 in Linguistic Series. 
>Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.
>Eckhoff, Hanne Martine, Olga A. Thomason and 
>Peter de Swart. 2013. Mapping out the Source 
>domain. Studies in Language 37/2: 302–355.
>Filip, Hana. 2003. Prefixes and the delimitation 
>of events. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 11: 55–101.
>Luraghi, Silvia 2009. A model for representing 
>polysemy: The Italian preposition da. In Jacques 
>François, Eric Gilbert, Claude Guimier, Maxi 
>Krause, éds. Actes du Colloque “Autour de la 
>préposition”, Caen, Presses Universitaires, 167-178.
>Luraghi, Silvia. 2010. Adverbial Phrases. In A 
>New Historical Syntax of Latin, Ph. Baldi and P. 
>Cuzzolin (eds.). Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 19-107.
>Luraghi, Silvia. 2011. Human landmarks in 
>spatial expressions: from Latin to Romance. In 
>S. Kittilä, K. Västi, J. Ylikoski (eds.), Case, 
>Animacy and Semantic Roles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 207-234.
>Luraghi, Silvia. 2014. Plotting diachronic 
>semantic maps. The role of metaphor. In S. 
>Luraghi & H. Narrog, eds., Perspectives on 
>Semantic Roles. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 99-150.
>Mackenzie, J. Lachlan. 1978. Ablative-locative 
>transfers and their relevance for the theory of 
>case-grammar. Journal of Linguistics 14: 129-375.
>Nikitina, Tatiana. 2009. Subcategorization 
>pattern and lexical meaning of motion verbs: A 
>study of the Source/Goal ambiguity. Linguistics 47: 1113-41.
>Nikitina, Tatiana and Marianna Spano. 2014. 
>'Behind' and 'in front' in Ancient Greek: A case 
>study in orientation asymmetry. In On Ancient 
>Grammars of Space, S. Kutscher & D. Werning 
>(eds). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 67-82.
>Noonan, Michael. 2009. Patterns of development, 
>patterns of syncretism of relational morphology 
>in the Bodic languages. In The Role of Semantics 
>and Pragmatics in the Development of Case, J. 
>Barðdal and S. Celliah (eds.). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 261-282.
>Pantcheva, Marina. 2010. The syntactic structure 
>of Locations, Goals, and Sources. Linguistics 48/5: 1043-1081.
>Regier, Terry & Mingyu Zheng. 2007. Attention to 
>endpoints: A cross-linguistic constraint on 
>spatial meaning. Cognitive Science 31: 705–719.
>Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Ada Rohde. 2004. The 
>goal bias in the encoding of motion events. In 
>Studies in Linguistic Motivation, G. Radden & 
>K.-U.Panther (eds.). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 249-268.
>Stolz, Thomas, Cornelia Stroh and Aina Urdze. 
>2006. On comitatives and Related Categories. A 
>Typological Study with Special Focus on the 
>Languages of Europe. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
>Stolz, Thomas. 1992. Lokalkasussysteme.  Wilhelmsfeld: Gottfried Egert Verlag.
>Zwarts, Joost. 2010. A hierarchy of locations: 
>Evidence from the encoding of direction in 
>adpositions and cases. Linguistics 48: 983-1009.
>Silvia Luraghi
>Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici, Sezione di Linguistica
>Università di Pavia
>Strada Nuova 65
>I-27100 Pavia
>telef.: +39-0382-984685
>fax: +39-0382-984487
>silvia.luraghi at unipv.it

Silvia Luraghi
Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici, Sezione di Linguistica
Università di Pavia
Strada Nuova 65
I-27100 Pavia
telef.: +39-0382-984685
fax: +39-0382-984487
silvia.luraghi at unipv.it
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20141103/710904ba/attachment.htm>

More information about the Lingtyp mailing list