* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
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 23.4406

Mon Oct 22 2012

Calls: Historical Linguistics, Sociolinguistics, Typology/Croatia

Editor for this issue: Alison Zaharee <alisonlinguistlist.org>

Date: 21-Oct-2012
From: Gilles Authier <gilles.authiergmail.com>
Subject: Workshop on Grammars in Contact: Convergence and Divergence in Languages of the Caucasus
E-mail this message to a friend

Full Title: Workshop on Grammars in Contact: Convergence and Divergence in Languages of the Caucasus

Date: 18-Sep-2013 - 21-Sep-2013
Location: Split, Croatia
Contact Person: Oleg Belyaev
Meeting Email: < click here to access email >

Linguistic Field(s): Historical Linguistics; Sociolinguistics; Typology

Call Deadline: 05-Nov-2012

Meeting Description:

Workshop on Grammars in Contact: Convergence and Divergence in Languages of the Caucasus
Workshop to be proposed for the 46th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea (Split, Croatia; September 18-21, 2013)
Organizers: Gilles Authier, Oleg Belyaev, Ranko Matasovic, Johanna Nichols
Contact Person: Oleg Belyaev (belyaeviling-ran.ru)

Recent rapid progress in the description of previously poorly known languages of the Caucasus, together with advances in linguistic typology and studies on language contact, make it timely to reexamine the traditional understanding of the Caucasus as a linguistic area. It is now becoming clear that the typological diversity both within and between the indigenous language families of the Caucasus is much greater than what was traditionally assumed. There are few pan-Caucasian typological features, but on the other hand there are more local contact effects that define important subareas: Ossetic (Iranian) is morphologically influenced by both West Caucasian and Kartvelian while retaining its Iranian profile overall; Udi is a full-fledged member of the Iran-Araxes area and shows such un-Caucasian properties as DOM while retaining its Daghestanian character overall; an Avar-Andic-Tsezic-Chechen-Ingush contact zone straddles the deepest phylogenetic divide within Nakh-Daghestanian without effacing that divide. In most cases the contact effects are most visible in typological phenomena that have received adequate description only in recent decades.

This workshop seeks to bring together work on typology, contact, and historical linguistics in the Caucasus (or in general), dealing with questions such as:

Diachronic accounts of contact patterns; ages of contact zones
Sociolinguistics of local and regional contact in the Caucasus
Shared but apparently not inherited properties within families or branches
What typological properties have proven most resistant to contact effects?
What typological properties have proven most prone to spread through contact?
Contact within and between language families
Improved typological definitions of language family profiles
Specific contact effects between specific languages
Pan-Caucasus areal properties
The Caucasus in relation to adjacent areas
Other topics dealing with contact and diachrony, especially but not exclusively in the Caucasus

Call for Papers:

Please send abstracts of about 300 words, in English, and including the author's name, affiliation and email, to Oleg Belyaev at belyaeviling-ran.ru.

Deadline for (preliminary) abstracts for this workshop: Monday, November 5, 2012. This will give us time to prepare the final workshop proposal for the SLE's deadline of November 15.

Some works that have figured in our understanding of the issues:

Aikhenvald, A. and Dixon, R. M. W. 2006. Grammars in Contact: A Cross-Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Arkhangelskiy, Timofey & Oleg Belyaev. 2011. A Comparison of Eastern Armenian and Iron Ossetic Spatial Systems. In: Vittorio S. Tomelleri, Manana Topadze, Anna Lukianowicz (eds.). Languages and Cultures in the Caucasus. München-Berlin: Verlag Otto Sagner, pp. 285-299.

Authier, Gilles & Timur Maisak (eds.). 2011. Tense, aspect, modality and finiteness in East Caucasian languages. (Diversitas Linguarum, 30.) Bochum: Brockmeyer, 2011.

Authier, Gilles. 2010. Azeri morphology in Kryz (East Caucasian). Turkic Languages 14.

Belyaev, Oleg. 2010. Evolution of Case in Ossetic. Iran and the Caucasus 14:2, pp. 287-322.

Chirikba, Viacheslav A. 2008. The problem of the Caucasian Sprachbund. In: Pieter Muysken (ed.). From linguistic areas to areal linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 25-94.

Heine, Bernd, and Tania Kuteva. 2005. Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge: CUP.

Hickey, Raymond (ed.). 2010. The handbook of language contact. Oxford: Blackwell.

Johanson, Lars. 2006. Historical, cultural and linguistic aspects of Turkic-Iranian contiguity. In: Lars Johanson & Christiane Bulut (eds.). Turkic-Iranian contact areas. Historical and linguistic aspects. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1-14.

Johanson, Lars. 2006. On the roles of Turkic in the Caucasus area. In: April McMahon, Yaron Matras, Nigel Vincent (eds.). Linguistic areas. London: Palgrave Macmillan , pp. 160-181.

Matasović, Ranko. 2012. Areal Typology of PIE: the case for Caucasian Connections. Transactions of the Philological Society 110: 283-310.

Nichols, Johanna, and David A. Peterson. 2010. Contact-induced spread of the rare Type 5 clitic. Presented at LSA Annual Meeting, Baltimore.

Stilo, Don. 2008. An introduction to the Araxes-Iran linguistic area. http://www.soas.ac.uk/linguistics/events/deptseminars/02dec2008-an-introduction-to-the-araxes-iran-linguistic-area.html

Tuite, Kevin. 1999. The myth of the Caucasian Sprachbund: The case of ergativity. Lingua 108, pp. 1-29.



Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue



Page Updated: 22-Oct-2012

Supported in part by the National Science Foundation       About LINGUIST    |   Contact Us       ILIT 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.