* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
LINGUIST List logo Eastern Michigan University Wayne State University *
* People & Organizations * Jobs * Calls & Conferences * Publications * Language Resources * Text & Computer Tools * Teaching & Learning * Mailing Lists * Search *
* *
LINGUIST List 20.2107

Mon Jun 08 2009

FYI: Call: Getting GET verbs in European languages

Editor for this issue: Catherine Adams <catherinlinguistlist.org>


To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.html.
Directory
        1.    Gudrun Rawoens, Call: Getting GET verbs in European languages

Message 1: Call: Getting GET verbs in European languages
Date: 05-Jun-2009
From: Gudrun Rawoens <gudrun.rawoensugent.be>
Subject: Call: Getting GET verbs in European languages
E-mail this message to a friend

Call for Papers

Volume: The Art of Getting: GET verbs in European languages from a
synchronic and diachronic point of view.
Editors: Alexandra Lenz and Gudrun Rawoens

The subject of the volume is the synchronic and diachronic variation and
change of GET verbs in European languages and their varieties.The selection
of these verbs is motivated in several ways and can be explained, e.g., by
their high frequency, their formal and semantic complexity, their high
variability in intra- and interlingual comparisons and (from a historical
or rather panchronic perspective) their affinity to grammaticalization.

As earlier research has shown (Askedal 1984, Broekhuis & Cornips 1994,
Gronemeyer 1999, Cornelis & Verhagen 1995, Lenz 2007 and submitted), we
have to turn our perspective towards the nonstandard varieties of European
languages (dialects and regiolects) to grasp the whole semantic and formal
complexity and productivity of these verbs. There we can find 'anomalies'
that the standard languages cannot reveal. In order to explain and
understand these peculiarities and also in order to systematically
establish relationships between them, different methodological and
theoretical approaches sketched below can and should be brought together.
Research on GET verbs shows some important overlap with research on
ditransitive verbs, especially in semantic/cognitive terms (see e.g.
Mukherjee 2005). The fact that there are no common but rather very
heterogeneous definitions of 'ditransitivity' in linguistics might be
responsible for the great variety of approaches to the description and
analysis of ditransitive and hence also of GET verbs. These approaches and
perspectives concern various dimensions of interest (lexical versus
syntactic features) and various models of analysis (e.g. functional,
generative, typological, cognitive).

Another important source of research on GET verbs can be found in the
framework of grammaticalization. Many changes observable in the history of
European GET verbs and a lot of dynamics currently observable can be
described within that framework which fits into the interface of syntax and
semantics. A quick look in the “World Lexicon of Grammaticalization” (Heine
& Kuteva 2002) gives an insight into the affinity of GET verbs to undergo
grammaticalization. Interestingly, most of the grammaticalization
literature concerning GET verbs is limited to one single verb and one
single grammaticalization path of that verb. To date, a systematic overview
of all the clearly interrelated grammaticalization processes of GET verbs
has not been set up.

In this volume we would like to bring together various theoretical and
empirical approaches to GET verbs in various European languages. Our aim is
to draw a comprehensive, representative and detailed picture of the vast
polysemy, multifunctionality and dynamics of these verbs which may be
regarded as some of the most complex verbs in European languages. All
approaches are welcome, whether language-specific, comparative, historical,
corpus-based, formal, or other.

Proposals (between 300 and 500 words) are to be sent to the editors
Alexandra Lenz and Gudrun Rawoens at a.n.lenzrug.nl. A few important dates
to keep in mind:

- Deadline for proposals: 31 July 2009
- Notification of acceptance: 15 August 2009
- Final versions: 15 January 2009

References
Askedal, John O. 1984. Zum kontrastiven Vergleich des sogenannten
“bekommen/erhalten/kriegen-Passivs” im Deutschen und entsprechender
norwegischer Fugungen aus faa und dem Partizip Perfekt. In: Norsk
lingvistisk tidsskrift 2, 133-166.
Broekhuis, Hans & Cornips, Leonie (1994): Undative constructions. In:
Linguistics 32, 173–189.
Cornelis, Louise & Verhagen, Arie (1995): Does Dutch really have a Passive?
In: Dikken, Marcel den & Hengeveld, Kees (eds.): Linguistics in the
Netherlands. Philadelphia, Amsterdam: Benjamins, 49–60.
Gronemeyer, Claire (1999): On deriving complex polysemy: the
grammaticalization of get. In: English Language and Linguistics 3, 1–39.
Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania (2002): World Lexicon of Grammaticalization.
Cambridge: University Press.
Lenz, Alexandra N. (2007): Zur variationslinguistischen Analyse
regionalsprachlicher Korpora. In: Kallmeyer, Werner & Zifonun, Gisela
(eds.): Sprachkorpora. Datenmengen und Erkenntnisfortschritt (IDS-Jahrbuch
2006) Berlin, New York: De Gruyter, 169–202.
Lenz, Alexandra N. (submitted): On the Perspectivization of a Recipient
Role - Crosslinguistic Results from a Speech Production Experiment. In.
Fryd, Marc (ed.): Passive in Germanic Languages. Groninger Arbeiten zur
germanistischen Linguistik. [submitted]
Mukherjee, Joybrato (2005): English Ditransitive Verbs. Aspects of Theory,
Description and a Usage-based Model.

Linguistic Field(s): General Linguistics

Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue




Please report any bad links or misclassified data

LINGUIST Homepage | Read LINGUIST | Contact us

NSF Logo

While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed
on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.