28.3002, Calls: Ling Theories, Syntax/South Africa

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-28-3002. Tue Jul 11 2017. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 28.3002, Calls: Ling Theories, Syntax/South Africa

Moderators: linguist at linguistlist.org (Damir Cavar, Malgorzata E. Cavar)
Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org (Helen Aristar-Dry, Robert Coté,
                                   Michael Czerniakowski)
Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Sarah Robinson <srobinson at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 12:08:40
From: Kristina Riedel [riedelk at ufs.ac.za]
Subject: From argument to adjunct in Bantu languages and beyond

 
Full Title: From argument to adjunct in Bantu languages and beyond 

Date: 02-Jul-2018 - 06-Jul-2018
Location: Cape Town, Western Cape, South Africa 
Contact Person: Kristina Riedel
Meeting Email: riedelk at ufs.ac.za
Web Site: http://icl20capetown.com/index.php/2016-06-20-10-33-33/abstracts 

Linguistic Field(s): Linguistic Theories; Syntax 

Language Family(ies): Narrow Bantu 

Call Deadline: 24-Jul-2017 

Meeting Description:

This workshop explores the question of how an event participant can sometimes
be realized as an argument and sometimes as an adjunct and the structural
relationships between the different realizations. Participants in an event may
be encoded as arguments or adjuncts, both within languages and
cross-linguistically. For instance, an agent can be expressed as a subject or
an oblique “by” phrase in English. Similarly, in the Spray/Load alternation,
the affected object can be expressed either as a PP or a DP; similarly, the
instrumental object can be expressed either as a DP or a PP. Thus, it appears
semantic functions can be mapped differentially to syntactic structure.

1a. Xolani sprayed paint on the fridge.
 b. Xolani sprayed the fridge with paint

Similar alternations occur between languages. For instance, a Bantu
applicative object is a prototypical argument (2a) whereas in English an
applicative is typically a PP adjunct (2b).
 
2a. unyana  u-sebenz-el-a   ku.yise
    1son  SM1-work-APPL-FV  LOC.his/her.father
    ‘The son is working for his father’ (Xhosa: du Plessis & Visser 1992:51)
 b. The son is working for his father.

The inverse also applies: typically argument-introducing morphology such as
applicative marking can introduce seemingly non-argument categories.  In Bantu
languages, as in other language families, applicative morphemes typically
introduce arguments. The applicative morpheme is one of the most productive in
these languages and generally has clear semantics, even while allowing for
different semantic roles (e.g. benefactive, malefactive, goal).  In the most
prototypical case, the applicative argument occupies the position immediately
after the verb and is object-markable. But the applicative can also introduce
locative, reason or instrumental applicatives (3), that may not display
typical object properties or semantics (cf. Bearth 2003; du Plessis & Visser
1992; Marten 2010, 2011, 2012; Riedel and Marten 2012). For example, in
Sambaa, instrumental applicatives, unlike benefactive-type applicatives,
cannot appear before a non-dislocated object (3a).
 
3a. *Ni-shengee      hamba  nkuni.
    SM1-cut.APPL.PERF.CJ 5machete 9firewood
    ‘I cut the firewood with a machete.'
 b. Ni-u-shengee   hamba,   mkate.
    SM1-OM3-cut.APPL.PERF.CJ 5machete 3bread
    ‘I cut it with a machete, the bread.’ (Sambaa, Riedel 2009:121)

Thus, both within languages and comparatively, semantic participants are
mapped to syntactic structure in different ways, as arguments or adjuncts. 
While it is possible to claim that these alternations are merely lexical
stipulations, we believe that they raise deeper theoretical questions. We
invite papers on the relationships between arguments and adjuncts in Bantu
languages, focussing on objects and verbal argument structure, and addressing
questions like the following:

- What are the parameters that define the range of variation between Bantu
languages as well as unrelated languages? 
- Why should such variation exist at all, especially given a universal
semantics?  How can a single semantics be reconciled with a diverse range of
structures? 
- What is the structural relationship between arguments and adjuncts and why
should the distinction exist at all.  An interesting answer to this question
is that arguments and adjuncts share a derivational relationship. This
possibility is explored by Collins (2004) for English passives and Pesetsky
(1995) for prepositional adjuncts which he argues are introduced as complement
“cascades” which subsequently raise to adjoining positions.


Call for Papers:

This workshop is part of the 20th International Congress of Linguists (ICL
20). 

Please select the workshop name when submitting your abstract via the ICL
portal: http://www.icl20capetown.com/index.php/2016-06-20-10-33-33/abstracts

Call deadline: 24 July 2017 (please check the ICL website for the final
deadline, expected to be at the end of August 2017)
Conference dates: 2-6 July 2018




------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
            http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-28-3002	
----------------------------------------------------------