[Lingtyp] Reminder - Workshop at ICHL22, 27-31 July 2015, Naples - Space in diachrony: asymmetries in the space domain and their developments
luraghi at unipv.it
Tue Jan 13 21:43:40 UTC 2015
>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:
> * Submission deadline: 30 January 2015.
> Notifications will be sent by 30 March 2015
>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: 302355.
>Filip, Hana. 2003. Prefixes and the delimitation
>of events. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 11: 55101.
>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: 705719.
>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.
>Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici, Sezione di Linguistica
>Università di Pavia
>Strada Nuova 65
>silvia.luraghi at unipv.it
Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici, Sezione di Linguistica
Università di Pavia
Strada Nuova 65
silvia.luraghi at unipv.it
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Lingtyp