29.3697, Calls: Historical Linguistics/USA

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-29-3697. Wed Sep 26 2018. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 29.3697, Calls: Historical Linguistics/USA

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: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 01:25:53
From: Elly van Gelderen [ellyvangelderen at asu.edu]
Subject: Comparative Approaches to the Diachronic Morpho-Syntax

 
Full Title: Comparative Approaches to the Diachronic Morpho-Syntax 

Date: 04-Jun-2019 - 04-Jun-2019
Location: Tempe, AZ, USA 
Contact Person: Elly van Gelderen
Meeting Email: ellyvangelderen at asu.edu

Linguistic Field(s): Historical Linguistics 

Call Deadline: 15-Dec-2018 

Meeting Description:

(Session of Diachronic Generative Syntax)

Comparative Approaches to the Diachronic Morpho-Syntax of the Indigenous
Languages of North and Central America
CFP Workshop – 4 June 2019 – Arizona State University

The diachronic study of indigenous languages has been challenging because of
the limitations of earlier material. However, a lot of work done in order to
understand the synchrony of a construction has also informed diachrony.
Comparative work on different languages in the same family has helped
reconstruct earlier stages, for example, Kroeber’s (1999) and Davis’ (2005)
work on negatives followed by clausal complements in Salish and Langacker’s
(1977) reconstruction of Uto-Aztecan phenomena which uses comparative data to
find earlier stages. Munro (1976) and Gordon (1986), while synchronic, provide
many reconstructions for Yuman. Mithun (2016) is another illustration of how
comparative data can shed light on changes in a variety of phenomena, such as
negatives, pronominals, demonstratives, and distributives. Also, Rice (2008)
applies a comparative approach to noun incorporation in Athabaskan. A somewhat
different approach to the diachronic questions is to employ internal
reconstruction, for example Givón (2000) gives a possible diachrony of the
Tolowa Athabaskan verb complex.

The purpose of the workshop is to show how synchronic or diachronic
comparative research can inform the diachronic morpho-syntax of indigenous
languages. With these languages, it is especially hard to separate syntax from
morphology and, comparing languages in one family, the syntax is seen to
`become’ morphology (Givón 1971). The theoretical framework for the workshop
is open.

The workshop will be held on 4 June 2019 before the Diachronic Generative
Syntax conference (5-7 June 2019) with which it will share a registration
website. 

Keynote speaker for the Workshop
Pamela Munro, UCLA


Call for Papers:

Abstracts for the workshop are invited for 30-minute presentations (followed
by 10 minutes of discussion). Abstracts must not exceed two pages in length,
including examples and references (12 pt font). Submission is limited to one
single-authored and one co-authored abstract per author, or two co-authored
abstracts, whether it is for the main conference or for the workshop, or both.
Abstracts must be anonymous.

Abstracts for the workshop should be sent to ellyvangelderen at asu.edu. 
 
Registration details: TBA
Deadline for submission: 15 December 2018
Notification of acceptance: 31 January 2019

Organizing Committee:

Elly van Gelderen, 
Johanna Wood, 
and Angela Schrader.

If you have questions or comments, please contact ellyvangelderen at asu.edu

References:

Davis, Henry 2005. On the Syntax and Semantics of Negation in Salish.
International Journal of American Linguistics 71.1: 1-55.
Givón, Talmy 1971. Historical syntax and synchronic morphology: An
archaelogist's field trip. Chicago Linguistic Society 7: 394-415.
Givón, Talmy 2000. Internal Reconstruction; as method, as theory. In Spike
Gildea (ed.), Reconstructing Grammar, 107-159. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gordon, Lynn 1986. Maricopa Morphology and Syntax. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Kroeber, Paul 1999. The Salish Language Family. Lincoln: The University of
Nebraska Press.
Langacker, Ronald 1977. Studies in Uto-Aztecan Grammar, I. Arlington: SIL.
Mithun, Marianne 2016. What cycles when and why? In Elly van Gelderen (ed),
Cyclical Change Continued, 19-45. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Munro, Pamela 1976. Mojave Syntax. New York: Garland Publishing.
Rice, Keren 2008. On incorporation in Athapaskan languages. In Thórhallur
Eythórsson (ed.). Grammatical change and linguistic theory: The Rosendal
papers, 375– 409. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.




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

*****************    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-29-3697	
----------------------------------------------------------