34.3286, Calls: Alignment and Argument Morphosyntax in Synchrony and Diachrony

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-34-3286. Fri Nov 03 2023. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 34.3286, Calls: Alignment and Argument Morphosyntax in Synchrony and Diachrony

Moderators: Malgorzata E. Cavar, Francis Tyers (linguist at linguistlist.org)
Managing Editor: Justin Fuller
Team: Helen Aristar-Dry, Steven Franks, Everett Green, Daniel Swanson, Maria Lucero Guillen Puon, Zackary Leech, Lynzie Coburn, Natasha Singh, Erin Steitz
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: Zackary Leech <zleech at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: 02-Nov-2023
From: Eystein Dahl [astrapie at amu.edu.pl]
Subject: Alignment and Argument Morphosyntax in Synchrony and Diachrony


Full Title: Alignment and Argument Morphosyntax in Synchrony and
Diachrony

Date: 08-Sep-2024 - 14-Sep-2024
Location: Poznań, Poland
Contact Person: Eystein Dahl
Meeting Email: astrapie at amu.edu.pl
Web Site: https://eysdah1.web.amu.edu.pl/events/

Linguistic Field(s): Historical Linguistics

Call Deadline: 08-Jan-2024

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.

Call for Papers:

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
8 January 2024 (12.00 PM CET). Abstracts Notification of acceptance
will be given by 15. April 2024.



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

Please consider donating to the Linguist List https://give.myiu.org/iu-bloomington/I320011968.html


LINGUIST List is supported by the following publishers:

American Dialect Society/Duke University Press http://dukeupress.edu

Bloomsbury Publishing (formerly The Continuum International Publishing Group) http://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/

Brill http://www.brill.com

Cambridge Scholars Publishing http://www.cambridgescholars.com/

Cambridge University Press http://www.cambridge.org/linguistics

Cascadilla Press http://www.cascadilla.com/

De Gruyter Mouton https://cloud.newsletter.degruyter.com/mouton

Dictionary Society of North America http://dictionarysociety.com/

Edinburgh University Press www.edinburghuniversitypress.com

Elsevier Ltd http://www.elsevier.com/linguistics

Equinox Publishing Ltd http://www.equinoxpub.com/

European Language Resources Association (ELRA) http://www.elra.info

Georgetown University Press http://www.press.georgetown.edu

John Benjamins http://www.benjamins.com/

Lincom GmbH https://lincom-shop.eu/

Linguistic Association of Finland http://www.ling.helsinki.fi/sky/

MIT Press http://mitpress.mit.edu/

Multilingual Matters http://www.multilingual-matters.com/

Narr Francke Attempto Verlag GmbH + Co. KG http://www.narr.de/

Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics / Landelijke (LOT) http://www.lotpublications.nl/

Oxford University Press http://www.oup.com/us

SIL International Publications http://www.sil.org/resources/publications

Springer Nature http://www.springer.com

Wiley http://www.wiley.com


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-34-3286
----------------------------------------------------------