29.3971, Calls: Genetic Classification, Historical Ling, Morphology, Syntax, Typology/Germany

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-29-3971. Sat Oct 13 2018. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 29.3971, Calls: Genetic Classification, Historical Ling, Morphology, Syntax, Typology/Germany

Moderator: linguist at linguistlist.org (Malgorzata E. Cavar)
Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org (Helen Aristar-Dry, Robert Coté)
Homepage: https://linguistlist.org

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

Editor for this issue: Everett Green <everett at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2018 10:51:43
From: Katarzyna Janic [katarzyna_maria.janic at uni-leipzig.de]
Subject: A Comprehensive Perspective on Reflexive Constructions

 
Full Title: A Comprehensive Perspective on Reflexive Constructions 

Date: 21-Aug-2019 - 24-Aug-2019
Location: Leipzig, Germany 
Contact Person: Katarzyna Janic
Meeting Email: katarzyna_maria.janic at uni-leipzig.de

Linguistic Field(s): Genetic Classification; Historical Linguistics; Morphology; Syntax; Typology 

Call Deadline: 21-Aug-2019 

Meeting Description:

(Session of 52nd Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea)

It is commonly accepted that the term reflexive refers to events wherein the
patient object co-refers with the agent subject as in Mary saw herself in the
mirror. In contrast, the coding of reflexive interpretation demonstrates
remarkable variation (König & Siemund 2000). It extends from nominals through
dedicated reflexive pronouns grammaticalized in some languages into verbal
affixes, finally to verbal strategies, including a change in verbal paradigm.

Reflexivity has been extensively discussed from different angles. Everaert &
van Riemsdijk (2005) investigate it from a syntactic perspective. Yet Huang
(2000) incorporates a neo-Gricean pragmatic account, whereas Keenan (1988)
delivers semantic expertise. Crosslinguistic studies also couch the topic of
reflexivity in various theoretical frameworks. While on the one hand, there is
a large body of literature nested in a generative perspective (Chomsky 1981;
Everaert 1986; Reinhart & Reuland 2011), on the other hand, there are several
functional-typological studies (Faltz 1985; Geniušienė 1988; Kemmer 1993;
König 2001; König & Gast 2008). But a survey of the literature clearly shows
that much of what counts nowadays as textbook knowledge in this domain still
remains subject to vivid discussions. Thus, the workshop addressing the key
issues related to reflexivity is well motivated.

Reflexives demonstrate a high degree of diversity that begs for explanation
(Déchaine & Wiltschko 2017). In the face of such immense variation, Volkova
(2014) openly admits that reconciling such diversity within the Binding Theory
is hard, if not impossible, to accomplish. In contrast, functional-typological
studies make no claims about language-individual mental grammars, providing
explanation based on general aspects of language use. 

The classification of reflexives also poses problems (Puddu, in preparation).
A common separation takes place along the morphological line, leading to
verbal vs. nominal distinction. This dichotomy has been tentatively traced by
Faltz (1985) and recognized in both generative and functional traditions. But
it runs into some difficulties when we consider, for example, the cases
wherein objects are coded on the verb and where the distinction between verbal
vs. NP strategy relies merely on affix vs. clitic distinction. As subsequently
argued by Faltz (1985), this distinction should rather be viewed as a
continuum. The fact that nominal and verbal reflexives frequently provide
evidence for a common etymology (Kazenin 2001) further supports the gradient
approach to this distinction.

Aims:

This workshop seeks to investigate the multifaceted aspects of reflexivity
from different theoretical perspectives. It is also interested in describing
the general patterns that shape reflexivity in a language or language
family(-ies) both in its current structure and historical development. Given
that reflexivity is a well-charted territory in languages with a good record
of data, we particularly encourage scholars working on less-documented
languages to explore this empirical domain so that it could bring not only a
new dimension to the theoretical linguistics but also serves as a solid
research tool for typological studies.

Possible topics:

- How is the reflexive interpretation coded in a language?
- What are cross-linguistic generalisations resulting from the work on
reflexivity?
- What are other semantic effects associated with reflexive morphology and how
can we explain their common formal source?
- What is the relationship of reflexive marker with the domain of valency?
- What are the possible paths of development of reflexive marker?
- How can reflexives be classified in a functional-typological perspective?


Call for Papers:

Workshop Convenors:

Katarzyna Janic
Nicoletta Puddu

Please send your non-anonymous 300-word abstract to both:
- katarzyna_maria.janic at uni-leipzig.de 
- n.puddu at unica.it




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

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:

              The IU Foundation Crowd Funding site:
       https://iufoundation.fundly.com/the-linguist-list

               The LINGUIST List FundDrive Page:
            https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-29-3971	
----------------------------------------------------------