|Full Title:||Workshop on Grammars in Contact: Convergence and Divergence in Languages of the Caucasus|
|Start Date:||18-Sep-2013 - 21-Sep-2013|
|Meeting Email:||click here to access email|
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 (email@example.com)
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
|Linguistic Subfield:||Historical Linguistics; Sociolinguistics; Typology|
This is a session of the following meeting:
46th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea
|Calls and Conferences main page|