[Lingtyp] Deadline for abstract submission for workshop on 'Alignment and Argument Morphosyntax in Synchrony and Diachrony'

[Eystein Dahl]

Dear friends and colleagues,
Please note that the deadline for abstract submission for the upcoming
workshop on 'Alignment and Argument Morphosyntax in Synchrony and
Diachrony' at the ICL, Poznań, 12/13 September 2024 is approaching:
February 1.

Meeting Description:

This workshop explores the relationship between alignment and argument
morphosyntax. Alignment is defined as the morphosyntactic realization of
arguments in a language. Argument morphosyntax, on the other hand, is taken
to involve at least two dimensions of grammar, argumenthood and
transitivity prominence. Argumenthood is a cover term for the
morphosyntactic properties characteristic of the core arguments of verbal
predicates, while transitivity prominence is the extent to which the verbal
predicates in a language show the same morphosyntactic marking as core
transitive verbs.

Alignment and argumenthood have been intensively explored from the early to
mid-1970s onward, a research endeavour that has resulted in an extensive
body of research output (cf. e.g., Dixon 1972, 1995, Keenan 1976, Falk
2006, the papers in Donohue and Wichmann (eds.) 2008, Coon et al. (eds.)
2017 and in Dahl (ed.) 2022). Transitivity prominence, on the other hand,
has received systematic scholarly attention in relatively recent times (cf.
e.g., Bossong 1998, Say 2014, 2017, Haspelmath 2015, Creissels 2018a,
2018b). However, although these works have greatly enhanced our
understanding of the three domains of argument morphosyntax, it largely
remains unexplored how they interact synchronically and diachronically. For
example, Falk's (2006) important study makes a strong case for the claim
that some types of subject properties (e.g., control. raising) show an
alignment-based alternation in their selection of core argument anchoring,
which in some languages is based on an accusatively oriented (S/A) profile
and in others on an ergatively oriented one (S/P). Other subject properties
(e.g., imperative addressee, anaphoric prominence) invariably show an
accusatively oriented anchoring across languages and thus are not sensitive
to differences in alignment. From a diachronic perspective, this seems to
indicate that certain types of alignment properties enhance the
grammaticalization of certain subjecthood features, a hypothesis that would
be in line with the results of recent investigations into the relationship
between grammaticalization and typology (e.g., Narrog 2017, Narrog and
Heine (eds.) 2018, Narrog and Heine 2021). Based on a scrutiny of data from
a selection of archaic Indo-European languages, Cotticelli and Dahl (2022)
argue that there may be a correlation between a high degree of consistency
in accusatively oriented case-marking and verb agreement, notably absence
of split alignment, and a rich inventory of subjecthood properties.
However, their analysis is based on a rather limited comparative basis and
restricted to languages with predominantly nominative-accusative alignment,
so that more detailed study is needed to arrive at firmer conclusions about
interactions between alignment and subjecthood, diachronically and
synchronically. Finally, transitivity prominence is a somewhat new field of
research but it seems likely that it systematically interacts with
subjecthood, on one hand, and alignment type on the other.

Final Call for Papers:

Deadline for abstract submission extended to 1 February 2024.

This workshop aims to bring together scholars interested in alignment,
argumenthood, and transitivity prominence to clarify how these three
dimensions interact synchronically and diachronically. One set of open
questions concerns the synchronic relations between them. For example, it
remains to be systematically explored on a broad empirical basis how robust
correlations between certain types of alignment systems and certain types
of argument properties like the ones identified by Falk (2006) are. A
related question is whether there are any systematic differences between
languages with split alignment systems and languages with more unitary
systems with regard to the inventory of subjecthood properties, as
suggested by the observations in Cotticelli and Dahl (2022). A third
problem concerns whether there are any correlations between the
productivity of oblique arguments and/or non-canonical agreement patterns,
that is, transitivity prominence, and consistency in alignment, on one
hand, or subjecthood properties, on the other. Another set of problems
concerns the diachronic interaction between these dimensions. As pointed
out by Creissels (2018a), a common type of split alignment arises as a
consequence of newly emerging tense/aspect constructions, e.g., progressive
or resultative/anterior categories, which often arise from nominal
constructions (c.f., also Dahl 2021). Creissels (2018a) also notes that
there is a tendency across languages to generalize one alignment pattern,
which he labels 'the obligatory coding principle', which among other things
has the effect of leveling out cases of split alignment. It remains an open
question in what ways this tendency interacts with other tendencies in the
shaping of language-specific alignment systems (cf., however, Dahl 2021 for
some pertinent observations). Another, related question concerns the
diachrony of argumenthood properties. particularly to what extent certain
types of alignment patterns and/or systems facilitate the
grammaticalization of certain types of morphosyntactic features
characteristic of core arguments. Comparative data discussed in Cotticelli
and Dahl (2022) show that even genetically closely related languages show
remarkable variation as to what properties constitute subject features,
suggesting that argumenthood constitutes a dynamic and emerging realm of
grammar rather than a stable inherited set of features in a language
family. A third set of problems relate to changes in relative transitivity
prominence and to what extent argument realization patterns become more
unitary over time or not. Since transitivity prominence is still relatively
understudied, it remains largely unexplored whether and to what extent
changes in alignment and/or argumenthood impacts the relative transitivity
prominence.

We invite contributions exploring these and related questions. A detailed
workshop description with references is found at
https://eysdah1.web.amu.edu.pl/events/. Abstracts should be submitted via
Easychair (https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=icl2024poznan) and
adhere to the general ICL guidelines (https://icl2024poznan.pl/?id=2).
Deadline for abstract submission is 1 February 2024 (12.00 PM CET).
Notification of acceptance will be given by 15. April 2024.
All best wishes,
Eystein Dahl
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20240124/de200f9d/attachment.htm>