LINGUIST List 20.3569
|
Thu Oct 22 2009
Calls: Morphology/Lithuania
Editor for this issue: Kate Wu
<kate linguistlist.org>
|
LINGUIST is pleased to announce the launch of an exciting new feature: Easy Abstracts! Easy Abs is a free abstract submission and review facility designed to help conference organizers and reviewers accept and process abstracts online. Just go to: http://www.linguistlist.org/confcustom, and begin your conference customization process today! With Easy Abstracts, submission and review will be as easy as 1-2-3!
|
Directory
1. Bert
Cornillie,
Workshop 'Bound Morphology in Common: Copy or Cognate?'
Message 1: Workshop 'Bound Morphology in Common: Copy or Cognate?'
|
Date: 22-Oct-2009
From: Bert Cornillie <Bert.Cornilliearts.kuleuven.be>
Subject: Workshop 'Bound Morphology in Common: Copy or Cognate?'
 E-mail this message to a friend
Full Title: Workshop "Bound Morphology in Common: Copy or Cognate?"
Date: 02-Sep-2010 - 05-Sep-2010
Location: Vilnius, Lithuania
Contact Person: Martine Robbeets (Leuven & Mainz) & Lars Johanson (Zürich & Mainz)
Meeting Email: martine_robbeetshotmail.com
Web Site: http://www.societaslinguistica.eu/
Linguistic Field(s): Morphology
Call Deadline: 12-Nov-2009
Meeting Description:
Workshop " Bound morphology in common: copy or cognate?"
at the 43rd annual Meeting of Societas Linguistica Europaea
Vilnius, 2-5 September 2010
(http://www.societaslinguistica.eu/)
Organizers:
Martine Robbeets (Leuven & Mainz) and Lars Johanson (Zürich & Mainz)
Contact email: martine_robbeetshotmail.com
Call for Papers
Time Frame:
The workshop proposal, including a preliminary list of participants and a three
line description of their topics, should be submitted to the SLE organizers
before November 15, 2009. Therefore we ask potential participants to send us the
provisional titles and short descriptions of their presentations no later than
November 12.
Abstracts should be submitted by the end of December.
Recent decades show an increase in contact studies, while genealogical studies
seem to loose in interest. However, contact linguistics and genealogical
linguistics are no antonyms: they complement each other.
Shared properties between languages may have arisen independently in each of
them by chance or nature, they may be copied or diffused between them, or they
may have arisen only once, when the languages were one and the same. Chance
explanations can be ruled out by regularity and paradigmaticity. And, violations
of the arbitrary relationship between sound and meaning can often be unmasked at
face value. It is much more difficult, however, to distinguish between copies
and cognates. A major obstacle for the establishment of language families and
the reconstruction of proto-languages is the fact that copies are often mistaken
for cognates.
Going beyond the concept of basic vocabulary on which lists of copy-proof
meanings, such as the Swadesh list or the Leipzig list, are based, we would like
to organize a panel on the stability and copiability of bound morphology. As a
result of the marked difference in the ease of linguistic borrowing between
grammar and lexicon and between bound and free morphemes, bound morphology is
held to be one of the most fruitful parts of language structure when it comes to
the distinction between copies and cognates.
The goal of the workshop is to discuss a hierarchy of morphological copiability
and to work out criteria to distinguish between cognates and copies in bound
morphology. The approach is empirical. We welcome comparisons of borrowed and
inherited morphology in a particular group of languages that display contact in
their family as well as typological contributions that compare borrowing
patterns with genealogical patterns in a cross-linguistic sample of languages.
Specific issues to be addressed include, among others:
- Are there any constraints on morphological borrowing?
- Is it possible to copy processes of grammaticalization?
- Is agglutinative morphology more copiable than fusional morphology?
- Is derivational morphology more copiable than inflectional morphology?
- Is nominal morphology more copiable than verbal morphology? Is there an
inequality for different parts of speech when it comes to morphological borrowing?
-Is there an inequality for different verbal categories when it comes to
morphological borrowing?
- Are there universal tendencies that allow predictions about the stability of
structural features in morpho-syntax?
- Is shared paradigmatic morphology a conditio-sine-qua-non for genealogical
relationship?
- Is it possible to establish linguistic relationship on the basis of shared
morphology alone?
- Should phonological comparison always precede morphological evidence in
matters of genealogical relationship?
- Is it possible to find tendencies or to set up criteria to distinguish between
cognates and copies in bound morphology?
References
Aikhenvald, Andrea & Dixon, R. M.W. (eds.) 2001. Areal diffusion and genetic
inheritance: Problems in comparative linguistics. Oxford: University Press.
Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and
form. (Typological studies in language 9). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Bybee, Joan; Perkins, R. & Pagliuca, W. 1994. The evolution of grammar: tense,
aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University Press.
Comrie, Bernard 2009. The role of verbal morphology in establishing genealogical
relations among languages. In: Johanson, Lars & Robbeets, Martine (eds.) 2009.
Transeurasian verbal morphology in a comparative perspective: genealogy,
contact, chance. (Turcologica 78) Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Harris, Alice & Campbell, Lyle 1995. Historical syntax in cross-linguistic
perspective. Cambridge: University Press.
Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania 2005. Language contact and grammatical change.
Cambridge: University Press.
Johanson, Lars 1992. Strukturelle faktoren in türkischen Sprachkontakten.
(Sitzungsberichte der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft an der J.W.
Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main. 29, 5.) Stuttgart: Steiner.
Siemund, Peter & Kintana, Noemi (eds.) 2008. Language contact and contact
languages. (Hamburg Studies on Multilingualism.) New York: Benjamins.
Thomason, Sarah Grey and Kaufman, Terrence 1988. Language contact, creolization,
and genetic Linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
|
|
Please report any bad links or misclassified data
LINGUIST Homepage | Read
LINGUIST | Contact us
While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed
on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.
|
|
