We would like to draw your attention to the call for papers for the proposed SLE workshop "Subordination and language change: new cross-linguistic approaches and perspectives", which (if accepted) will take place during the 55th Annual Meeting of the *Societas Linguistica Europaea* to be held in Bucharest, August 24-27, 2022.
Iker Salaberri, Annemarie Verkerk and Anne Wolfsgruber
*Subordination and language change: new cross-linguistic approaches and perspectives* Deadline for abstract submission: November 1st, 2021
A recurrent claim in the literature on language change concerns the conservativeness of subordinate clauses, i.e., the tendency for innovations to arise in main clauses and only later, if at all, extend to embedded contexts (Lightfoot 1982: 154, Bybee et al. 1994: 230?231, Crowley & Bowern 2010: 231). A number of cross-linguistic grammatical asymmetries mapped along different clause types have been accounted for by this view, concerning, for instance, word order in Biblical Hebrew (Givón 1977: 191-234), Chadic (Frajzyngier 1996: 165-173), Germanic (Hock 1991: 330-336) and Niger-Congo (Givón 1979: 259-261). The emergence of innovative morphology in main clauses vs. preservation of obsolete morphology in subordinate clauses in Basque (Aldai 2000: 48), Cairene Arabic (Mitchell 1956: 83?85) and Tokyo Japanese (Matsuda 1993) has been explained in the same terms. Matsuda (1998) and Bybee (2002) provide an extensive overview of the reasons for this contrast between clause types.
There are, however, several issues with the view that subordinate clauses preserve old features in the face of language change. First of all, some scholars argue for the exact contrary, namely that innovative patterns emerge in embedded contexts and only later extend to root clauses; this point has been made in studies on reanalysis (Campbell 1991: 285-299), word order change (Stockwell & Minkova 1991: 399-400) and the loss of null referential pronouns in languages such as Old High German (Axel 2007: 307-314), Middle French (Vance 1997: 294-321, Ledgeway 2021 among others) and Old Russian (Luraghi & Pinelli 2015). Second, other contributions state that language change ensues at equal rates in all contexts affected by the change (Kroch 1989: 206). Third, comparative research on this topic is hampered by the fact that the concepts clause and subordination have, despite their frequent use in the literature, numerous definitions that vary depending on the conception of grammar. As a result, there is a lack of comprehensive cross-linguistic studies on the diachronic behavior of different clause types. This is despite the fact that the increasing availability of grammatical descriptions and access to digital corpora would enable such comparative research.
The aim of this workshop is to bring together scholars from different theoretical persuasions working on historical linguistics, both in languages with a well-documented history and languages for which less diachronic evidence is available, but which can nonetheless provide valuable data on the basis of comparative analysis. We welcome abstracts dealing with specific languages as well as those which adopt a more general cross-linguistic perspective. The following is a non-exhaustive list of possible topics:
- What evidence is there that specific clause (sub)types are more innovative/conservative in the face of language change? - To what extent do divergent conceptions of clause and subordination condition our understanding of language change in different clause types? - What are the causes for the divergent diachronic behavior of different clause types? - Does the diachronic behavior of different clause types vary depending on the language, language stage, linguistic family or area under discussion? - Does contact between languages influence the way in which change ensues in different kinds of clauses? - How do frequency effects affect language change in different clause types? - How can different statistical analyses help model the diachronic behavior of various kinds of clauses?
Please send your non-anonymous abstract of max. 300 words to ikersalaberri at gmail.com <mailto:ikersalaberri at gmail.com>by 01-Nov-2021. The convenors will carry out a first round of review and notify authors of their decision by mid-November. Accepted abstracts will be sent to the SLE conference organizers as part of the workshop proposal. Notification of acceptance or rejection of the workshop proposal will be by 15th December.
*References* Aldai, Gontzal. 2000. Split ergativity in Basque: the pre-Basque antipassive-imperfective hypothesis. *Folia Linguistica Historica* 21(1/2). 31-97. Axel, Katrin. 2007. *Studies on Old High German syntax: left sentence periphery, verb placement and verb-second*. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Bybee, Joan. 2002. Main clauses are innovative, subordinate clauses are conservative: consequences for the nature of constructions. In Joan Bybee & Michael Noonan (eds.), *Complex sentences in grammar and discourse: essays in honor of Sandra A. Thompson*, 1-18. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca. 1994. *The evolution of grammar: tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world*. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press. Campbell, Lyle. 1991. Some grammaticalization changes in Estonian and their implications. In Elizabeth C. Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds.), *Approaches to grammaticalization*, volume 1: *Theoretical and methodological issues*, 285-299. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crowley, Terry & Claire Bowern. 2010. *An introduction to historical linguistics* (4th edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Frajzyngier, Zygmunt. 1996. *Grammaticalization of the complex sentence: a case study in Chadic*. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Giv?n, Talmy. 1977. The drift from VSO to SVO in Biblical Hebrew: the pragmatics of tense-aspect. In Charles N. Li (ed.), *Mechanisms of syntactic change*, 181-254. Austin/London: University of Texas Press. Giv?n, Talmy. 1979. *On understanding grammar*. Orlando: Academic Press. Hock, Hans H. 1991. *Principles of historical linguistics* (2nd edition). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. Kroch, Anthony S. 1989. Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. *Language Variation and Change* 1(3). 199-244. Ledgeway, Adam. 2021. V2 beyond borders: the Histoire Ancienne jusque César. *Journal of Historical Syntax* 29(5). 1-65. Lightfoot, David W. 1982. *The language lottery: toward a biology of grammars*. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. Luraghi, Silvia & Erica Pinelli. 2015. The loss of referential null subjects in Russian: what subordinate clauses can tell us. Paper presented at the Slavic corpus linguistics: the historical dimension conference, Arctic University of Norway, April 21-22, 2015. Matsuda, Kenjir?. 1993. Dissecting analogical leveling quantitatively: the case of the innovative potential suffix in T?ky? Japanese. *Language Variation and Change* 5(1). 1-34. Matsuda, Kenjir?. 1998. On the conservatism of embedded clauses. *Theoretical and applied linguistics at Kobe Shoin* 1. 1-13. Mitchell, Terence F. 1956. *An introduction to Egyptian colloquial Arabic*. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stockwell, Robert P. & Donka Minkova. 1991. Subordination and word order change in the history of English. In Dieter Kastovsky (ed.), *Historical English syntax*, 367-408. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. Vance, Barbara S. 1997. *Syntactic change in medieval French: verb-second and null subjects*. Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Media.
-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 15590 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://mailman.uib.no/public/corpora/attachments/20211001/962e99ad/attachment.txt>