[Lingtyp] CfP: Workshop “Applicative uses of spatial markers” (LLcD, 9-11 September 2024)

[Louagie Dana]

CfP: workshop at the LLcD Conference (Langues et langage à la croisée des disciplines), 9-11 September 2024 (Sorbonne Université, Paris)

Workshop title: Applicative uses of spatial markers: typological and diachronic perspectives



Workshop convenors: An Van linden (University of Liège), Dana Louagie (University of Liège; F.R.S.-FNRS) & Dirk Pijpops (University of Antwerp)

Workshop description:
This workshop will investigate how elements with spatial meaning develop applicative functions from a typological and diachronic perspective. Whereas applicatives have been described to originate in adpositions with spatial meaning for a long time, for example in Bemba (Atlantic-Congo, Bantu, Zambia; Givón 1975: 85, cited in Peterson (2007: 126)), spatial verb morphology has only recently been established as a source for applicatives (e.g. Payne (2021) on Nilotic languages). For instance, this new pathway of grammaticalization is proposed on the basis of present-day examples like (1) from Harakmbut (non-classified, Peru), featuring the spatial prefix ok-~k-, which expresses ‘separation’.

(1) Harakmbut (An Van linden 2022: 131, 142)
(a)
Lupe
o-k-tegŋ-me
mbiʔigŋ

Lupe
3sg.ind-spat:separation-cut-rec.pst
fish

‘Lupe cut the fish into pieces.’

(b)
i-k-totok-me-y
eʔ-pidn
abuela-ta

1sg-spat:separation-pull-rec.pst-1.ind
npf-thorn
grandmother-acc

‘I pulled a thorn out of grandmother(ʼs knee).’

In (1a), the spatial prefix specifies the internal spatial configuration of the O-participant resulting from the action denoted by the verb; the fish ended up being cut into separate pieces rather than showing cuts but still being in one piece. The prefix does not affect the valency of the verb, which remains transitive. In (1b), by contrast, it introduces a Source argument to the clause (viz. accusative-marked abuela-ta ‘grandmother’), and thus turns a transitive root into a ditransitive stem. In addition to general spatial markers like the spatial prefixes in Harakmbut, applicative uses have also been attested for directionals (e.g. in Nilotic languages, see Payne (2021: 719)), associated motion markers (e.g. in Bystraja Even (Tungusic, Russia; Pakendorf & Stoynova 2021: 857)), incorporated spatial nouns (e.g. in Abaza (Northwest Caucasian, Russia; Arkadiev 2021)), as well as particles in verb-particle constructions (e.g. in Dutch (Indo-European, Belgium, the Netherlands and Suriname)).

It is still unknown how widespread these ‘old’ and ‘new’ pathways from spatial element to applicative marker are, which stages can be distinguished, and what the main types of variation of the outcomes are.

The workshop will bring together linguists working on these issues, either on the basis of historical corpus data for languages with written records or based on first-hand data collected in the field for those languages that do not have historical data. We invite language-specific contributions, as well as cross-linguistic or areal studies. More specifically, the questions to be addressed include, but are not limited to, the following:


  *   What type of spatial markers can develop applicative functions? And do these also still show non-applicative functions?
  *   What are the thematic/semantic roles of the applied phrases introduced by applicatives of spatial origin?
  *   How do these applicative markers affect the valency of their host verb? Do they increase its valency with a core argument (direct applicatives) or a non-core argument (non-direct applicatives; cf. Zúñiga & Kittilä 2019: 58), or do they rearrange the semantic roles of their arguments without changing the valency of the verb?
  *   When or why do language users employ these applicatives? Does the use of applicatives consistently cause the same meaning shift across verbs or does this differ between verbs or between applied phrases (cf. Pijpops et al. 2021)?
  *   What stages can be proposed for diachronic pathways from spatial element to applicative marker? Do these spatial elements retain their spatial semantics in their applicative use (cf. (1b)), or do they show semantic bleaching depending on the host verb? Specifically for the case of adpositional sources, what is the role of adposition stranding in the grammaticalization process (cp. Peterson 2007)?
  *   Where do we find hotbeds of applicative markers of spatial origin? Are there any areal or genetic patterns?

Submission guidelines
Please send provisional abstracts (in English or French) of no more than 300 words (excluding references) in PDF format by 28 January 2024 to dana.louagie at uliege.be<mailto:dana.louagie at uliege.be>. Authors will be asked to submit revised abstracts if the workshop is approved. For more details, visit the conference webpage: https://llcd2024.sciencesconf.org/.

Important dates:
28 January: expressions of interest with provisional abstract
21 February: notification of acceptance of workshops
10 April: deadline for abstract submissions (if workshop is accepted)
10 May: notification of acceptance of papers

References
Arkadiev, P. (2021). Between noun incorporation and lexical affixation in Northwest Caucasian (with focus on Abaza). Paper presented at Stockholm University, 9 Dec 2021, online.
Givón, Talmy. (1975). Promotion, Accessibility and Case Marking: Toward Understanding Grammars. Working Papers on Language Universals 19: 55–125.
Pakendorf, B. & N. Stoynova. (2021). Associated motion in Tungusic languages: a case of mixed argument structure. In A. Guillaume & H. Koch (eds.), Associated Motion, 855-898. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.
Payne, D. (2021). The extension of associated motion to direction, aspect and argument structure in Nilotic languages. In A. Guillaume & H. Koch (eds.), Associated Motion, 695-746. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.
Pijpops, D., D. Speelman, S. Grondelaers & F. Van de Velde. (2021). Incorporating the multi-level nature of the constructicon into hypothesis testing. Cognitive Linguistics. 32.3: 487–528.
Peterson, D. A. (2007). Applicative constructions. Oxford: OUP.
Van linden, A. (2022). Spatial prefixes as applicatives in Harakmbut. In S. Pacchiarotti & F. Zúñiga (eds.), Applicative morphology: Neglected syntactic 18 and non-syntactic functions, 129-159. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Zúñiga, F. & S. Kittilä. (2019). Grammatical Voice. Cambridge: CUP.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20240119/20fb27f6/attachment.htm>