36.2885, Confs: Workshop at SLE 2026: (Non)finiteness and Finiteness Shifts (Germany)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-36-2885. Fri Sep 26 2025. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 36.2885, Confs: Workshop at SLE 2026: (Non)finiteness and Finiteness Shifts (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: 25-Sep-2025
From: Dominika Skrzypek, Eystein Dahl [astrapie at amu.edu.pl]
Subject: Workshop at SLE 2026: (Non)finiteness and Finiteness Shifts


Workshop at SLE 2026: (Non)finiteness and Finiteness Shifts
Short Title: SLE 59

Date: 26-Aug-2026 - 29-Aug-2026
Location: Osnabrück, Germany
Contact: Dominika Skrzypek
Contact Email: astrapie at amu.edu.pl
Meeting URL: https://societaslinguistica.eu/sle2026/

Linguistic Field(s): General Linguistics; Historical Linguistics;
Morphology; Syntax; Text/Corpus Linguistics

Submission Deadline: 09-Nov-2025

The notion of finiteness involves a grouping of verb forms into two
classes, finite versus nonfinite (Koptjevskaja-Tamm 1999: 147). The
term itself goes back to the Latin finitus, the perfective participle
of the verb finio, ‘finish, limit’ (Nikolaeva 2007: 1), illustrating
the traditional view that finite verb forms are ‘limited’ by
categories such as person, number, tense or mood, etc., while
nonfinite verb forms (e.g., infinitive, participles, gerunds) are not
marked for these categories. The categories ‘limiting’ the nonfinite
forms are not defined in terms of any individual universal
morphological property but rather in terms of a cluster of properties
(Cristofaro 2007, Bisang 2007). The formal distinction is mirrored by
the functional one, so that only finite verb forms can be the (only)
predicate of independent sentences, while the nonfinite verb forms are
reserved for other syntactic functions, like attributes or adverbials
(Koptjevskaja-Tamm 1999: 147), and occur exclusively or predominantly
in dependent contexts.
With regard to their morphology, ‘prototypical’ nonfinite verb forms
vary quite a lot: some of them have a reduced set of verbal features,
as compared to finite verb forms, and thus can be defined negatively;
others have in addition acquired certain morphological features which
are typical for other, nonverbal words. The traditional approaches to
finiteness are rooted in the study of Indo-European languages, where
finiteness is correlated with morphological distinctions and
functional restrictions (the inability to be the only predicate of the
independent clause). Through studies of non-Indo-European languages it
has been observed that the purely inflectional approach to finiteness
does not have a universal application. In a number of languages the
relevant categories do not correlate and the forms classified as
nonfinite may lack some categories but not others (Nikolaeva 2007: 1)
or can be used as the only predicate of a main clause (Kalinina
2001d). Thus, cross-linguistically, the notion of finiteness has
proven to be elusive and not necessarily universal (Bisang 2007: 116).
The relationship between finite and nonfinite verb forms can also be
studied diachronically. There are nonfinite forms which have become
nominalized or adjectivized to such an extent that they share a number
of fuctions as well as the declension (where available) with nouns or
adjectives, essentially exhibiting a full categorial shift. On the
other hand, we find deverbal nouns, such as the English gerund,
originally a verbal noun (in Old English ending in -ung), which began
to develop verbal properties in the Late Old English / Early Middle
English (de Groot 2007). The verbal gerund is thus the result of
diachronic verbalization of the nominal gerund, which existed long
before its verbal counterpart (Tajima 1985: 111–113; Fischer
1992: 252, Fonteyn 2019).
We invite submissions dealing with finiteness shifts in a diachronic
perspective, in particular including but not restricted to work
focussing on:
- the direction of such shifts (does the form in question become more
or less finite overtime); which types of shifts occur more frequently?
- the possibility to establish the degree of finiteness of a
non-finite form in diachronic research: what tools can be used (such
as establishing the external and internal syntax)
- the factors influencing finiteness shifts
- grammaticalisation patterns influencing finiteness and/or
infiniteness marking
- the diachronic typology of finiteness/infiniteness marking
We welcome work applying different types of qualitative and
quantitative methodology, as well as papers with a focus on
theoretical argumentation.
We invite abstracts for 20-minute presentations (+ 10-minute
discussion).
Please send anonymised abstracts of max. 300 words in PDF or Word
format to Dominika Skrzypek and Eystein Dahl (astrapie at amu.edu.pl)
Call deadline: 9 November 2025
References:
Bisang, W. 2007. Categories that make finiteness: discreteness from a
functional perspective and some of its repercussions. In: Nikolaeva,
I., 115-137.
Cristofaro, S. 1998. ‘Deranking and balancing in different
subordination relations: a typological study’, Sprachtypologie und
Universalienforschung 51: 3–42.
De Groot, Casper. 2007. Hannay, Michael & Steen, Gerard (red.)
(2007). Structural-functional studies in English grammar: in honour of
Lachlan Mackenzie. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, 175-191
Fischer, O. 1992. “Syntactic change and borrowing: the case of the
accusative-andinfinitive construction in English.” In Internal and
External Factors in Syntactic Change, edited by M. Gerritsen and D.
Stein, 17–89. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Fonteyn, Lauren (2019). Categoriality in language change: the case of
the English gerund. New York, NY: Oxford University Press
Kalinina, E. J. 2001. Nefinitnye Skazuemye v Nezavisimom Predlozˇenii
[NonWnite Predicates in Independent Clauses]. Moscow: IMLI RAN.
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. 1993. ‘Finiteness’, in R. E. Asher and J. M.
Simpson (eds.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Oxford and
Aberdeen: Pergamon Press and Aberdeen University Press, 1245–8.
Nikolaeva, Irina Alekseevna (ed.) 2007. Finiteness: theoretical and
empirical foundations. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Oxford
Tajima, Matsuji. 1985. The Syntactic Development of the Gerund in
Middle English. Tokyo: Nan’un-do.



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

********************** 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-36-2885
----------------------------------------------------------