36.2801, Confs: Workshop at SLE 2026: Rethinking Argument Structure Interactionally - Deviations From Who Does What to Whom Across the Languages (Germany)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-36-2801. Thu Sep 18 2025. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 36.2801, Confs: Workshop at SLE 2026: Rethinking Argument Structure Interactionally - Deviations From Who Does What to Whom Across the Languages (Germany)

Moderator: Steven Moran (linguist at linguistlist.org)
Managing Editor: Valeriia Vyshnevetska
Team: Helen Aristar-Dry, Mara Baccaro, Daniel Swanson
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: 17-Sep-2025
From: Pavel Ozerov [pavel.ozerov at uibk.ac.at]
Subject: Workshop at SLE 2026: Rethinking Argument Structure Interactionally - Deviations From Who Does What to Whom Across the Languages


Workshop at SLE 2026: Rethinking Argument Structure Interactionally -
Deviations From Who Does What to Whom Across the Languages

Date: 26-Aug-2026 - 29-Aug-2026
Location: Osnabrück, Germany
Meeting URL:
https://societaslinguistica.eu/sle2026/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2025/09/Rethinking-argument-structure-interactionally.pdf

Linguistic Field(s): Anthropological Linguistics; General Linguistics;
Linguistic Theories; Syntax; Text/Corpus Linguistics

Submission Deadline: 10-Nov-2025

Convenors: Vladimir Panov, Vilnius University
(vladimir.panov at flf.vu.lt); Maria Khachaturyan, CNRS/University of
Helsinki (maria.khachaturyan at helsinki.fi); Pavel Ozerov, University of
Innsbruck (pavel.ozerov at uibk.ac.at)
Workshop Description:
The goal of this workshop is to lay the groundwork for an
utterance/TCU-oriented typology. Departing from the traditional
clause-based model of cross-linguistic variation, we aim to uncover
the fundamental syntactic patterns of spoken discourse and the
typological variation in this domain.
Traditionally, linguistics has emphasized clausal structures and
sentences, commonly defined as structures with a predicate and its
arguments. Such structures typically express a proposition, a
description of an event that addresses the question of Who does what
to whom.  Although a definition of the basic notions of clause and
sentence is known to be problematic under close scrutiny (e.g. de
Beaugrande 1999), clause-based argument structure is the traditional
domain of theoretical and typological inquiry of syntax. Such a view
is reflected throughout linguistic literature, as is illustrated in
(1):
(1) I wrote a long letter (Croft 2022: 32)
Despite the massive shift to usage-based models in current linguistic
thinking, the clause/sentence-based view of grammar persists nearly
unchallenged.  Distributional typology, which has gained popularity in
recent years, significantly reformulates the discipline’s goals as
asking and answering the questions what’s where why. However, it
remains rather traditional in its focus on Who does what to whom
structures. This stance is evident, for example, in recent discussions
on the forces that shape case-marking systems cross-linguistically:
“In utterances with an agent (A) and a patient (P)—for example, "Henry
kissed Mark"—languages need to signal which argument maps onto which
role.” (Shcherbakova et al. 2024: 7259). Similarly, cognitive
experimental approaches operate within the sentence-planning and
comprehension paradigm, with the requirement to produce a full clause
as a response to a stimulus (e.g. Nordlinger, Rodriguez and Kidd
2022:195).
By contrast, conversation analysis and its daughter approach,
interactional linguistics, have focused on the structures of spoken
language in face-to-face interactions. In this tradition, it has long
been known that units of spoken interaction, such as (the lexical
content of) intonation units (IUs) and turn construction units (TCUs),
can constitute locally sufficient contributions, without forming a
clause in the traditional sense. The panoply of such structures and
the phenomena they represent is broad. This includes, for example,
incremental planning and delivery. While the incremental view is in
line with current clause-based approaches to planning (cf. again
Nordlinger, Rodriguez and Kidd 2022 above), in the interactional view
chunks that do not evolve into a clausal structure form nonetheless
part of the overall larger structure. A different type of a phenomenon
are structures that conventionally convey information without having a
clausal structure. This, for instance, includes detached NPs used for
such tasks as shifting attention to a referent, assessments,
exclamations, requests or narration (Sorjonen and Raevaara 2014,
Helasvuo 2019, Izre’el  2018). Some additional well-known cases of
non-clausal constructions with heavy interactional load and designated
functions are vocatives (Sonnenhauser and Noel Aziz Hanna 2013) and
interjections (Dingemanse 2024). Taking a non-clausal analysis of such
structures seriously leads to further theoretical questions, such as
the clausal nature of stand-alone verbs and the notion of “omittable
arguments” in “radical pro-drop” languages. Is reconstructing a clause
in such cases justifiable, or is it parallel to reconstructing, for
instance, “an omitted temporal adverbial” where the temporal reference
is established from the context (as potentially is the case in (1)).
Finally, there is an also widespread family of mirror-image phenomena
where syntactic structures conventionally go beyond expressing aspects
of the reported event and involve aspects of the speech act and its
sociopragmatic settings (such as allocutivity (Antonov 2015)).
Unfortunately, interactional linguistics and typologically informed
usage-based linguistics continue to exist in parallel universes. There
are very few studies that seriously ask how “clausal” spoken languages
actually are. Notable attempts to bridge the gap originating in
interactionally informed approaches, are yet to make an impact on
theoretical linguistics and typology. For example, Laury, Ono & Suzuki
(2019) show that Finnish and Japanese differ significantly with
respect to argument expression and, consequently, the proximity to the
who-does-what-to-whom prototype. While Finnish speakers most often
express at least one “argument” overtly (and the predicate is
obligatory marked for subject), Japanese speakers seem to orient to
predicate-only TCUs (cf. also the contributions to special issues of
Studies in Language 2019 and Languages 2025 edited by Laury and Ono on
this topic). Yet, to this day, the dialogue between interactional
approaches, general linguistics, usage-based theories, and typology is
minimal. Moreover, the coverage of this research has been rather
narrow, with much of the work concentrating on the same language
choice. Building upon the seminal work of Ono, Laury and others, we
aim to collect new cross-linguistic evidence and develop further the
attempt to situate the problem of adequacy of clause- and argument
structure-based thinking at the core of the general linguistic
discussion.
The aim of the workshop is thus an attempt to discuss and determine
what components basic units of natural spoken discourse consist of,
and how languages differ in this respect. We are particularly
interested in deviations from prototypical clausal structures
(predicate + arguments). These deviations can be classified into two
main types: (1) “omission” or non-marking of typical arguments (A, S,
P, R, etc.) and (2) addition (more or less obligatory) of
non-canonical referential phrases: topics, other detached noun
phrases, address forms, etc. Some of these deviations have been
discussed in the literature., e.g.:
 - Prevalence of predicate-only structures, e.g. Japanese (Laury, Ono
& Suzuki 2019),
 - Prevalence of structures based on referential structures with no
overt syntactic relations to the rest of the utterance
(“topic-prominent languages” Li & Thompson 1976, Left Dislocations
(Ozerov 2024) and more)
 - Non-specification or underspecification of thematic roles of the
referents, e.g. Riau Indonesian (Gil 2004; Gil & Shen 2019),
 - Addressee prominence: allocutivity, e.g. Basque and Korean (Antonov
2013, 2015), and familiarizers (Kleinknecht & Souza 2017),
 - Obligatory indexation of the speech situation, such as avoidance
speech, e.g., the mother-in-law speech style in Dyirbal (Dixon 2015).
 - Other quasi-obligatory pragmatic marking, e.g., through final
particles in East Asia (Panov 2020)
 - The “online syntax” approach (Hopper 1987; Auer 2015) arguing that
typical clauses emerge in the incremental production of utterances.
Research Questions:
This workshop invites contributions that ask and answer the following
questions using concrete, language-specific and cross-linguistic data:
 - How do naturally occurring units of interaction in individual
languages differ from the clausal prototype “predicate + arguments”
(who does what to whom)?
 - What types of frequent or obligatory, free or bound referential
phrases do occur beyond the standard semantic types of arguments (S,
A, P, T, R)?
 - How much non-specification of thematic roles can be found
cross-linguistically?
 - Are there any areal or genealogical clines in utterance types that
do not fit the clausal prototype?
 - Is propositional content and indexing of the speech event features
a binary opposition or a continuum?
 - Which alternative models of syntax can account for utterances that
are not prototypical clauses? What can we benefit from applying these
models to clausal patterns?
Please send provisional abstracts of no more than 300 words (excluding
references) in PDF format by November 10, 2025 to any of the convenors
References:
Antonov, Anton. 2013. Grammaticalization of allocutivity markers in
Japanese and Korean in a cross-linguistic perspective. In Martine
Robbeets & Hubert Cuyckens (Hrsg.), Shared Grammaticalization: With
special focus on the Transeurasian languages (Studies in Language
Companion Series), vol. 132. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
doi:10.1075/slcs.132.
Antonov, Anton. 2015. Verbal allocutivity in a crosslinguistic
perspective. Linguistic Typology 19(1). 55–85.
doi:10.1515/lingty-2015-0002.
Auer, Peter. 2015. The temporality of language in interaction:
projection and latency. In Arnulf Deppermann & Susanne Günthner
(Hrsg.), Studies in Language and Social Interaction, vol. 27, 27–56.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/slsi.27.01aue.
De Beaugrande, R., 1999. Sentence first, verdict afterwards: On the
remarkable career of the “sentence”. Word, 50(1), pp.1-31.
Croft, William. 2022.  Morphosyntax: Constructions of the World’s
Languages. 1. edn. Cambridge University Press.
doi:10.1017/9781316145289.
Dingemanse, Mark. 2024. Interjections at the heart of language. Annual
Review of Linguistics, 10(1), pp.257-277.
Dixon, R. M. W. 2015. Edible Gender, Mother-in-Law Style, and Other
Grammatical Wonders: Studies in Dyirbal, Yidiñ, and Warrgamay. Oxford
University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198702900.001.0001.
Gil, David. 2004.: Riau Indonesian Sama: Explorations in
macrofunctionality. In Martin Haspelmath (Hrsg.), Coordinating
constructions, vol. 58, 371–424. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing
Company. doi:10.1075/tsl.58.20gil.
Gil, David & Yeshayahu Shen. 2019. How Grammar Introduces Asymmetry
Into Cognitive Structures: Compositional Semantics, Metaphors, and
Schematological Hybrids. Frontiers in Psychology 10. 2275.
doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02275.
Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa. 2019. Free NPs as units in Finnish. Studies in
Language 43.2: 301-328.
Hopper, Paul. 1987. Emergent Grammar. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley
Linguistics Society 13. 139–157. doi:10.3765/bls.v13i0.1834.
Izre’el, Shlomo. 2018. Unipartite clauses: A view from spoken Israeli
Hebrew. In Afroasiatic: Data and perspectives (pp. 235-259). John
Benjamins
Kleinknecht, Friederike & Miguel Souza. 2017. Vocatives as a source
category for pragmatic markers: From deixis to discourse marking via
affectivity. In Chiara Fedriani & Andrea Sansò (Hrsg.), Studies in
Language Companion Series, vol. 186, 257–287. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins Publishing Company. doi:10.1075/slcs.186.10kle.
Laury, Ritva, Tsuyoshi Ono & Ryoko Suzuki. 2019. Questioning the
clause as a crosslinguistic unit in grammar and interaction. Studies
in Language 43(2). 364–401. doi:10.1075/sl.17032.lau.
Li, Charles N. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1976. Subject and topic: A new
typology of language. In Charles N. Li (Hrsg.), Subject and Topic: A
New Typology of Language, 457–489. New York: Academic Press.
Linell, Per. 2005. The written language bias in linguistics: its
nature, origins and transformations (Routledge Advances in
Communication and Linguistic Theory 5). First issued in paperback.
London New York: Routledge.
Nordlinger, R., Rodriguez, G.G., & Kidd, E. (2022). Sentence planning
and production in Murrinhpatha, an Australian 'free word order'
language. Language 98(2), 187-220.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/lan.2022.0008.
Ozerov, Pavel (2024): Left Dislocation in Spoken Hebrew, it is neither
topicalizing nor a construction. Linguistics
doi:10.1515/ling-2023-0174.
Panov, Vladimir (2020): Final particles in Asia: Establishing an areal
feature. Linguistic Typology 24(1). 13–70.
doi:10.1515/lingty-2019-2032.
Shcherbakova, Olena, Damián E. Blasi, Volker Gast, Hedvig Skirgård,
Russell D. Gray & Simon J. Greenhill (2024): The evolutionary dynamics
of how languages signal who does what to whom. Scientific Reports
14(1). 7259. doi:10.1038/s41598-024-51542-5.
Sonnenhauser, Barbara, and Patrizia Noel Aziz Hanna. 2013. "Vocative."
Addressing between System and Performance. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Sorjonen, M.L. and Raevaara, L., 2014. On the grammatical form of
requests at the convenience store: Requesting as embodied action. In
Requesting in social interaction (pp. 243-268). John Benjamins



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

********************** LINGUIST List Support ***********************
Please consider donating to the Linguist List, a U.S. 501(c)(3) not for profit organization:

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 Brill https://www.degruyterbrill.com/?changeLang=en

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

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

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

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/

Peter Lang AG http://www.peterlang.com


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-36-2801
----------------------------------------------------------