36.1839, Confs: Workshop at 49. Österreichische Linguistiktagung: Native vs. Borrowed Word Formation in Synchrony and Diachrony (Austria)

Fri Jun 13 17:05:02 UTC 2025

LINGUIST List: Vol-36-1839. Fri Jun 13 2025. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 36.1839, Confs: Workshop at 49. Österreichische Linguistiktagung: Native vs. Borrowed Word Formation in Synchrony and Diachrony (Austria)

Moderator: Steven Moran (linguist at linguistlist.org)
Managing Editor: Justin Fuller
Team: Helen Aristar-Dry, Steven Franks, Joel Jenkins, Daniel Swanson, Erin Steitz
Jobs: jobs at linguistlist.org | Conferences: callconf at linguistlist.org | Pubs: pubs at linguistlist.org

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Editor for this issue: Valeriia Vyshnevetska <valeriia at linguistlist.org>

================================================================

Date: 12-Jun-2025
From: Gianina Iordachioaia [gianina.iordachioaia at uni-graz.at]
Subject: Workshop at 49. Österreichische Linguistiktagung: Native vs. Borrowed Word Formation in Synchrony and Diachrony

Workshop at 49. Österreichische Linguistiktagung: Native vs. Borrowed
Word Formation in Synchrony and Diachrony
Short Title: ÖLT

Date: 05-Dec-2025 - 08-Dec-2025
Location: Klagenfurt, Austria
Contact Email: borrowing.workshop at gmail.com

Linguistic Field(s): General Linguistics; Historical Linguistics;
Language Acquisition; Linguistic Theories; Morphology

Submission Deadline: 01-Oct-2025

Coexistence of borrowed and native word formation morphology is a
widespread if not universal characteristic of languages (Matras &
Sakel 2007; Gardani, Arkadiev & Amiridze 2015). In many cases, foreign
derived morphemes occupy specific lexical strata or registers,
reflecting a compartmentalisation into native and borrowed subsystems
(Matras 2009). For example, English word formation features both
native Germanic and borrowed Latinate suffixes (e.g., -ness vs. -ity,
respectively), whereby some of the latter ultimately became productive
on native bases.
In this workshop we aim to bring together insights on how the contrast
between native and borrowed word formation morphology is reflected in
speakers’ knowledge of grammar. We are interested in the process of
integration of morphologically complex words during language contact,
the incorporation of borrowed word forming mechanisms in the recipient
language, as well as in the consequences for the synchronic grammar
and lexicon. The focus is on the theoretical analysis of the relevant
phenomena. We welcome contributions from different theoretical
frameworks on topics which include but are not limited to the
following:
 - Is the distinction between native and borrowed items part of the
grammatical knowledge of speakers? How insightful is it to view this
coexistence in terms of competition or rivalry?
 - What drives the speakers’ perception of ‘nativeness’ and what are
the consequences for the process of morphological integration?
 - How do languages integrate borrowed word forming morphology from
different languages (e.g., Latinate and English borrowing in German),
and how does this give rise to different “strata” of word formation
patterns?
 - How universal are the various proposed “borrowability scales” and
what is their status in the different theoretical approaches to word
formation?
 - What are the differences in the integration or nativization of
borrowed morphemes between different morphological types (e.g.
compounding vs. derivation vs. inflection) and what might be the
morphological reason behind these empirical differences?
 - How do borrowed categorizers (e.g. -ier- in German, -eer- in Dutch
etc.) arise?
 - How do borrowed affixes become native-like diachronically?
 - Is there a difference between the development of borrowed vs.
native morphology during L1 acquisition at different diachronic stages
of ‘integration’?
 - Why do languages differ w.r.t. the importance of ‘nativeness’ for
morphological productivity and if so, how is this distinction best
modelled?
 - What role does prescriptism play w.r.t. what counts as ‘native’ or
‘borrowed’ and w.r.t. morphological productivity?
Submission Guidelines:
Presentations should follow a 20-minute talk + 10-minute discussion
format. Abstracts must be between 150 and 300 words in length. All
abstracts should include references and adhere to the formatting
conventions of the Unified Style Sheet for Linguistics
(https://clas.wayne.edu/linguistics/resources/style).
Please submit your abstract by 1 October 2025 to:
borrowing.workshop at gmail.com
Workshop Organizers:
Laura Grestenberger
(laura.grestenberger at univie.ac.at)
Gianina Iordăchioaia
(gianina.iordachioaia at uni-graz.at)
Veronika Mattes
(veronika.mattes at uni-graz.at)
Marko Simonović
(marko.simonovic at uni-graz.at)
Martina Werner
(martina.werner at univie.ac.at)
References:
Gardani, F., Arkadiev, P., & Amiridze, N. (Eds.). (2015). Borrowed
morphology. De Gruyter Mouton.
Haugen, E. (1950). The analysis of linguistic borrowing. Language,
26(2), 210–231. https://doi.org/10.2307/410058
Johanson, L., & Robbeets, M. (Eds.). (2012). Copies versus cognates in
bound morphology. Brill.
Matras, Y. (2009). Language contact. Cambridge University Press.
Matras, Y., & Sakel, J. (Eds.). (2007). Grammatical borrowing in
cross-linguistic perspective. Mouton de Gruyter.
Mithun, M. (2012). Morphologies in contact: Form, meaning, and use in
the grammar of reference. In M. Vanhove, T. Stolz, A. Urdze, & H.
Otsuka (Eds.), Morphologies in contact (pp. 15–36). Akademie Verlag.
Myers-Scotton, C. (2002). Contact linguistics: Bilingual encounters
and grammatical outcomes. Oxford University Press.
Seifart, F. (2013). AfBo: A world-wide survey of affix borrowing.
Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Retrieved
from https://afbo.info
Thomason, S. G., & Kaufman, T. (1988). Language contact, creolization,
and genetic linguistics. University of California Press.
Weinreich, U. (1953). Languages in contact: Findings and problems.
Linguistic Circle of New York.

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

********************** LINGUIST List Support ***********************
Please consider donating to the Linguist List to support the student editors:

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=87C2AXTVC4PP8

LINGUIST List is supported by the following publishers:

Bloomsbury Publishing http://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/

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

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

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

Edinburgh University Press http://www.edinburghuniversitypress.com

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

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

Language Science Press http://langsci-press.org

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

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

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

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

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

Wiley http://www.wiley.com

----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-36-1839
----------------------------------------------------------