Proposal submission deadline: November 30, 2017
Notification of acceptance: December 10, 2017
The list of panels:
The panel is conceived as a collection of papers reporting on linguistically oriented empirical studies into language development – monolingual and bi-/multilingual, native and non-native, typical and atypical. The studies in mind are those whose primary goal is to look at factors influencing the acquisition and attrition of different linguistic phenomena – phonological, morphosyntactic, lexical,semantic, discourse and pragmatic. Papers adopting a variety of theoretical perspectives and methodological approaches and looking into different languages and language combinations are welcome. Papers dealing with less commonly studied languages and language combinations are particularly welcome.
Research on the relationship between the norm and use of the Croatian standard language has shown that differences between these two varieties exist even at the ortoepic level. These have already left its trace on contemporary codification, whereby different approaches are used to bring normative givenness and reality of use together. In order to contribute to a more complete understanding of contemporary challenges in
standardisation, presentations will look at current accentual differences in the Croatian standard language.
Language as a symbolic tool of communication emerges from discursive practices that enact the embodied cognition and conceptualization patterns. Different types of construal patterns that are inherent in the linguistic structures provide a different cognitive approach to the referential ontological reality with potentially important pragmatic differences. The aim of this panel is to discuss theoretical approaches and methods, case studies, resources, and tools for researching the effects of linguistic construal on the conceptualization processes such as categorization, metonymic profiling, metaphoric mappings, and other figures of thought from a variety of diachronic and/or synchronic, cross-cultural and/or intra-cultural perspectives.
The panel aims to show diachronic and synchronic syntactic differences. We invite syntacticians and other linguists to contribute to the realisation of this goal. We welcome experts in the field of historical syntax to help us identify certain syntactic features from the Middle Ages until this day, as well as experts in contemporary syntax in order to determine the current state of syntax and form assumptions about its future. We believe that both traditional and contemporary approaches to syntax will find their place in this panel.
What languages in Southeast Europe are in danger of extinction? What is their current state of ethnolinguistic vitality and what diverse factors are driving the language shift in the communities that speak them? Are there any revitalization activities in place? If so, how successful are they and what challenges do they encounter? What documentation work is being done to preserve the languages, if any? Southeast Europe is an area where several genetically and typologically diverse languages are spoken in communities that have been interacting with each other over many centuries. In linguistic and sociolinguistic terms, the area holds great interest. For example, one such area of interest is the study of contact-induced language change among several unrelated Balkan languages belonging to the Balkan Sprachbund as well as between different Romance and Slavic languages both in the present and in the past. However, as suggested by Victor A. Friedman (2016), while the Balkan linguistic area has been extensively studied in the linguistic literature, there is scant linguistic literature documenting and analyzing language endangerment in Southeast Europe (cf. Mosley 2010). With the goal of deepening the knowledge about language endangerment in the area, we invite proposals for 20-minute presentations on endangered languages spoken in different countries in Southeast Europe. We especially look forward to receiving proposals for papers examining the socio-economic, cultural, political and historical circumstances of language shift in these endangered linguistic communities, including issues of attitudes, social status and identity; reporting on and discussing language documentation projects; and providing accounts of and/or reflecting on any revitalization movements and/or activities.
Linguistic diversity is inherent to linguistic geography (geolinguistics, dialect geography, also termed as areal linguistics in some literature, for which some authors believe that it is just a simplified linguistic geography schematized in line with the teachings of Neogrammarians). From its very beginnings, thanks to its founder J. Gilliéron and his idea to collect the data for a linguistic atlas of France, linguistic geography has focused on the distribution of linguistic phenomena in a particular area. Its task is to show, but also to analyze, the development of detected changes and to depict isoglosses on maps and in linguistic atlases, which enables us to track the migrations of the population and inter-language and inter-dialect relations in a particular area. However, contemporary linguistic geography should adapt its goals and methods (Brozović Rončević and Štokov 2017) to go beyond mapping and catch pace with the computer technology – researchers should aim at producing interactive on-line maps accompanied by sound recordings, transcripts, etc., which would be available to end-users.
The goal of this panel is to see how the methods of linguistic geography can shed light on how linguistic diversity is reflected in the data collected primarily for the Slavic Linguistic Atlas (OLA) (project headed by the International Commission OLA founded in 1958 by the International Slavic Committee) and the European Linguistic Atlas (ALE), the most comprehensive international linguistic project, which was founded in 1970, despite much earlier announcements, and related to this, in the data collected for various national and regional linguistic atlases. The panel is motivated by the wish to present the results and perspectives with respect to presenting and analyzing linguistic diversity within the framework of these projects and by the wish to warn about the need for research of a greater number of dialectal points, because only detailed grids created by linguists for individual languages will enable the creation of faithful representations of linguistic diversity within particular languages and relations between various languages. Naturally, during this process, we have to detect various issues related to the interpretation of archival dialectal materials, that is, we have to take into account the issues involved in the process of standardising the transcripts, linguistic symbols and fonts, the format of comments, etc., all of which would enable us to create a standardised method for notation and comparison. In addition to this, we will try to warn about the possibilities, issues and limitations of linguistic geography in concrete domains of diachronic and synchronic linguistic research, e.g. historic phonology, lexicology, phraseology, anthroponomastic research, dialectal maps and the need for linking linguistic geography to digital humanities.
The panel includes the following topics:
Linguistic diversity and traditional linguistic geography: vocalism in the Slovenian Linguistic Atlas (OLA) (Karmen Kenda-Jež, Fran Ramovš Institute of the Slovenian Language ZRC SAZU, Slovenia)
Early isoglosses in western South Slavic (Tijmen Pronk, University of Leiden, the Netherlands)
Map for 'child' (OLA L 1775 ‘ребенок’ and SlFPM 1776 Nsg ‘dětę’ /и произв/) in organic local idioms of the Slavic world (Mira Menac-Mihalić, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb and Anita Celinić, Institute of Croatian Language and Linguistics, Zagreb)
European Linguistic Atlas (ALE) and the promotion of linguistic diversity (Dunja Brozović Rončević, Department of Ethnology and Anthropology, University of Zadar)
Perspectives of ALE in the age of digital humanities (Jožica Škofic, Fran Ramovš Institute of the Slovenian Language ZRC SAZU, Slovenia)
Croatian Linguistic Atlas – after one and a half centuries of geolinguistics (Mijo Lončarić, Zagreb)
Regional linguistic atlases (Goran Filipi, Juraj Dobrila University of Pula)
Geolinguistics and the language of old Croatian authors (Boris Kuzmić, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb)
Geolinguistics and anthroponomastic research (Anđela Frančić, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb)
Geolinguistics and phraseology (Mira Menac-Mihalić, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb)
Linguistic diversity through the perspective of dialectal maps of Croatian dialects (Silvana Vranić, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Rijeka)
Corpus Linguistics has experienced in the last decades a steep growth both from the point of view of the number of resources available and of the volume of research based on its methodologies (McEnery/Hardie 2012). The increase in the number of resources is due to the larger availability of computers, but also to the exploitation of the Web as a source of linguistic data (Hundt et al. 2007). The increase of resources has not only concerned English, i.e. the language which has mainly benefited from corpus-based studies and from corpus building initiatives, but also many other (major, standard) languages. In addition to specific language resources, English and a number of other languages provided with strong traditions of standardization can benefit today from the presence of specific tools allowing the researchers to perform automatically the fundamental linguistic annotations: PoS-taggers, syntactic parsers, morphological analyzers, etc. This makes them high density languages in contrast to minority languages, dialects, non-standardized varieties or even poorly documented languages, which are defined low density languages (Maxwell/Hughes 2006).
In the perspective of documenting, preserving and studying linguistic diversity, the workshop will raise the following questions:
• how can the methods of corpus linguistics be helpful?
• Can the tools used for high density languages be used with low density languages?
• What kinds of strategies has been or can be used to circumvent the limitations of an existent tool to apply it to a low density language?
In this panel, we will try to answer these questions by gathering researchers working with a corpus linguistic methodology on varieties for which pre-cooked tools are not available.
Hundt, M., Nesselhauf, N. and Biewer, C. (eds). 2007. Corpus Linguistics and the Web. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Maxwell M. and Hughes B. 2006. “Frontiers in Linguistic Annotation for Lower-Density Languages”. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Frontiers in Linguistically Annotated Corpora 2006, 29–37.
McEnery T. and Hardie A. 2012. Corpus Linguistics: Method, Theory and Practice. Cambridge: CUP.
Several linguistic approaches have claimed that parallel forms with the same meaning are rarely (if ever) evidenced in languages. For example, The Principle of Contrast (Clark 1987) claims that any two forms must contrast in meaning, and the Constant Rate Hypothesis (Kroch 1994) assumes some functional distinctions between similar forms. However, parallel forms with the same meaning are evidenced in languages: different forms of the same case in noun declension, different nominalization suffixes, parallel forms in verbal inflection, etc. It has previously been assumed that this phenomenon is rare in morphology, tends to be small and diachronically unstable (e.g. Kroch, 1994), but this view has been challenged in recent literature (e.g. Fehringer 2004, Thornton 2011).
The study of morphological doubletism across the world’s languages currently is a fruitful area of research. It can answer questions which stand as the basis of our understanding of language, primarily whether the language system is a perfect system where doublets constitute only a temporary or transitional state, or if it is a more unstable system of which doublets are a component on a pair with other components. It is hardly ever the case that both members of the same cell display equal frequency in usage (Thornton 2012). In that sense, the two forms compete, and one of them is more prevalent. Theoretical models that can explain this manner of competition revolve around two approaches. One is polarized between one regular (default) and one irregular paradigm. According to this, irregular paradigms show evidence of overgeneralisation and paradigm change when frequency is considered (e.g. Pinker 1984). Consequently, frequent doublets will be more prone to using irregular patterns, while less frequent words will more likely conform to the regular paradigm. The other approach introduces language typology as a relevant factor, stating that morphological change is always governed by similar principles, such as morphotactic transparency (Dressler 2005) or morphological complexity (e.g. Dahl 2004).
In this panel, research of morphological doublets in several languages will be outlined, together with some theoretical assumptions and practical considerations regarding morphological doubletism.