32.3208, Calls: General Linguistics, Historical Linguistics, Semantics, Syntax, Typology/France
The LINGUIST List
linguist at listserv.linguistlist.org
Mon Oct 11 21:36:44 UTC 2021
LINGUIST List: Vol-32-3208. Mon Oct 11 2021. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.
Subject: 32.3208, Calls: General Linguistics, Historical Linguistics, Semantics, Syntax, Typology/France
Moderator: Malgorzata E. Cavar (linguist at linguistlist.org)
Student Moderator: Jeremy Coburn, Lauren Perkins
Managing Editor: Becca Morris
Team: Helen Aristar-Dry, Everett Green, Sarah Robinson, Nils Hjortnaes, Joshua Sims, Billy Dickson
Jobs: jobs at linguistlist.org | Conferences: callconf at linguistlist.org | Pubs: pubs at linguistlist.org
Homepage: http://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: Mon, 11 Oct 2021 17:36:04
From: Rea Peltola [rea.peltola at unicaen.fr]
Subject: Postmodality and the life cycles of modal expressions
Full Title: Postmodality and the life cycles of modal expressions
Date: 02-Jun-2022 - 03-Jun-2022
Location: Caen, France
Contact Person: Rea Peltola
Meeting Email: postmodality at sciencesconf.org
Web Site: https://postmodality.sciencesconf.org
Linguistic Field(s): General Linguistics; Historical Linguistics; Semantics; Syntax; Typology
Call Deadline: 30-Nov-2021
Meeting Description:
The aim of this conference is to shed light on the late stages in the
evolution of modal items, namely the transition from modal to postmodal
domain, the internal structure of the postmodal category and the possible
remodalization cycles.
The cross-linguistic evolution of modal expressions is described as chain-like
grammaticalization structures where items of different degrees of semanticity
follow one another in a predetermined order. Lexical or otherwise semantically
more concrete elements develop into different types of expressions of
possibility and necessity until they eventually bleach into semantically less
and less specific, abstract markers (e. g. Lehmann 2015). Bybee, Perkins &
Pagliuca (1994) identified paths of development across a set of unrelated
languages for different types of modalities. According to the authors, all
these tracks present an evolution from agent-oriented source meanings through
speaker-oriented and epistemic modalities to subordinate uses.
In van der Auwera & Plungian (1998), these paths were put together and
elaborated into maps consisting of three domains. Premodal domain brings
together lexical source expressions that enter the modal domain, sometimes
through auxiliarization or other changes in grammatical shape. At the other
end, postmodal sphere involves a rather heterogeneous set of desemanticized
elements that no longer carry modal meaning. A famous example are the Romance
future tenses stemming from the latin modal periphrasis ''habere + INF''
(''cantare habeo'' ‘I can/must sing’) which ceased to convey possibility and
necessity when grammaticalizing into a verbal tense (''chanterai'' ‘I will
sing’). Another case in point is the English modal auxiliary ''should'' when
used for marking that the state of affairs deviates from the speaker’s
expectations: ''– Can I get you some coffee? – Strange that you should ask''
(see Celle 2018: 39). At the interface between modal and postmodal domains,
the grammaticalization paths cross, as both possibility and necessity tracks
may lead to certain postmodal meanings. This was one of van der Auwera &
Plungian’s (1998) main arguments for unifying the different paths into a map.
The evolutions described by the map result from semantic processes of
different types: specialization, generalization and extension (metaphor and
metonymy).
These models have ever since inspired further studies, both in typological
perspective and in individual languages. Modality’s semantic map has been
finetuned, elaborated and discussed (e. g. van der Auwera, Kehayov & Vittrant
2009; van der Auwera 2013; Traugott 2016; Georgakopoulos & Polis 2018).
Attention has been drawn to the evolution of non-verbal modal categories, the
areal restriction in certain grammaticalization paths and the crosslinguistic
variation as to the presence and evolution of particular subcategories of
modality (e. g. Traugott 2011; Narrog 2012; Becker 2014). Constructional
approaches have recently undertaken to research the evolution of modal
meanings in patterns where both grammaticalization and lexicalization
processes come into play and as part of developments within networks of
constructions, beyond individual units (e. g. Hilpert 2016; Cappelle &
Depraetere 2016; Hilpert, Cappelle & Depraetere, to appear; see also Schulze &
Hohaus 2020).
Keynote speakers:
- Martin Becker (Köln)
- Agnès Celle (Paris)
- Heiko Narrog (Tohoku), video conference
Organization:
CRISCO EA4255 Research center, Caen-Normandy University
Evgeniya Gorshkova-Lamy
Adeline Patard
Rea Peltola
2nd Call for Papers:
Second circular - Call for papers
We call for contributions from different theoretical and methodological
approaches and concerning any language.
- Various semantic-functional notions have been identified at the border
separating modal and postmodal spheres, such as concession, condition,
complementation, optative, future-time, quotative and consecution. How to
operate with this rich array of concepts within a language and
cross-linguistically?
- Which semantic mechanisms and internal and external parameters of change can
be found across languages? Which are the contexts triggering the far-reaching
grammaticalization process? To what extent are phrasal or discursive
structures carrying postmodal meaning conventionalized as constructions
(Goldberg 2010) and, thus, form linguistic units of their own?
- The limits separating the categories that form Modality’s semantic map are
not sharp but rather gradual, or even fuzzy (see van der Auwera & Plungian
1998: 88). How are clines of change manifest in the modal-postmodal interval?
Through which semantic processes do the modal origins determine the emerging
postmodal meanings? Is it necessarily about the modal meaning becoming weaker
or lower, or rather a shift or a redistribution of meaning and pragmatic
reinforcement, as in the early stages of grammaticalization (Heine, Claudi &
Hünnemeyer 1991, Hopper & Traugott 1993)? Or should we talk about different
layers of modality and more elusive modal meaning, as suggested by Celle
(2018) when investigating the English ''would'' and ''should'' in factual but
affective utterances?
- The decrease in semantic integrity proceeds unevenly: certain semantic
components pertain, others are lost underway (e. g. Lehmann 2015: 136–137).
How can we describe the desemantization process in cognitive semantic terms?
Which conceptual structures remain in the transition from modal to postmodal?
- Grammaticalization intersects with (inter)subjectification of meaning
(Traugott 2010). For example, the Swedish auxiliaries ''må'' ‘may, should’ and
''måtte'' ‘may, must’ display high degrees of intersubjectification as
postmodal markers (Beijering 2017). In French, Le Querler (2001) has referred
to discursive functions of demodalized ''pouvoir'' ‘can’. Is the semantic
potential left by the lost meaning components somehow put at the service of
interaction, discourse and text? Through what mechanisms does this happen?
- Not all modal categories are verbal (see Gosselin 2010 for examples). In
what ways does postmodality involve other syntactic categories (nouns,
adjectives, adverbs)? Are the paths of evolution the same as those identified
in the verbal domain?
- The cyclical nature of linguistic change is observed in various syntactic
and semantic categories (see van Gelderen 2009). In the literature concerning
the grammaticalization of modal elements, there are some examples of items
displaying “full cycles” in their evolution. For example, the future tense can
be the result of demodalization, on the one hand, and the remodalized source
for new modal meanings, on the other (van der Auwera & Plungian 1998: 97). How
to describe the relationships between “generations” of modal elements? What
risks are associated with conveying analogies between evolution in biological
organisms and linguistic change (Dahl 2001)?
Abstract submission:
Anonymous abstracts of no more than 500 words, excluding references, are to be
submitted by November 30, 2021, via Sciencesconf platform:
https://postmodality.sciencesconf.org. Each abstract will be reviewed by (at
least) two members of the Scientific committee. Notifications of acceptance
will be sent in February 2022. The talks will be 20 minutes long, followed by
10 minutes for discussion. The working languages are English and French.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*************************** LINGUIST List Support ***************************
The 2020 Fund Drive is under way! Please visit https://funddrive.linguistlist.org
to find out how to donate and check how your university, country or discipline
ranks in the fund drive challenges. Or go directly to the donation site:
https://crowdfunding.iu.edu/the-linguist-list
Let's make this a short fund drive!
Please feel free to share the link to our campaign:
https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-32-3208
----------------------------------------------------------
More information about the LINGUIST
mailing list