Workshop on Impersonality and Correlated Phenomena: Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives 2016 Salzburg

  • Conference Call
  • We are pleased to announce that the Work­shop on Imper­son­al­ity and Cor­re­lated Phe­nom­ena: Diachronic and Syn­chronic Per­spec­tives will take place at the Uni­ver­sity of Salzburg on Novem­ber 1011, 2016.

    The aim of this work­shop is to gain a more pro­found the­o­ret­i­cal under­stand­ing of the encod­ing of imper­son­al­ity on a syn­tac­tic and/​or a seman­tic level and to inves­ti­gate how imper­sonal con­struc­tions are inter­twined with other fac­tors within a lan­guage system.

    Invited Speakers

    • Dalina Kallulli (Uni­ver­sity of Vienna)
    • Flo­rian Schäfer (Hum­boldt Uni­ver­sity of Berlin)

    Work­shop Theme

    The notion of imper­son­al­ity gen­er­ally com­prises phe­nom­ena that show agent alternation/​defocusing/​absence or (de-)masking which include con­fig­u­ra­tions like (non-)referential indef­i­nite pro­nouns (fr. on, dt. man, nl. men, engl. one, sp. uno/​a, pt. a gente etc.), exple­tives, se-​constructions, periphrastic pas­sives, p-​labile verbs and (reflex­ively marked) anti­causative alter­na­tions, depo­nent verbs and their evo­lu­tion, mid­dles, etc.

    Fur­ther­more, we are espe­cially inter­ested in analy­ses that focus on how imper­sonal con­struc­tions are linked to other prop­er­ties of a lan­guage sys­tem, some of which are illus­trated here draw­ing on Romance languages:

    For exam­ple, in recent decades, it has been observed that there seems to be a rela­tion between the pro-​drop para­me­ter and the avail­abil­ity of imper­sonal se/​si (cf. Bel­letti 1982). Fur­ther evi­dence in this direc­tion is pro­vided by Brazil­ian Por­tuguese which is claimed to be a par­tial pro-​drop lan­guage and which shows con­sid­er­able dif­fer­ences in the use of se as com­pared to Euro­pean Por­tuguese, a con­sis­tent pro-​drop lan­guage (cf. Holm­berg et al 2009).

    An inter­est­ing case is also Old French whose pro-​drop sta­tus is widely debated (cf. Adams 1987, Vance 1997 and many oth­ers) and which also shows less flex­i­bil­ity in using se as com­pared to other Old Romance vari­eties. In oppo­si­tion to that, there are the­o­ret­i­cal imple­men­ta­tions that indi­cate that the cor­re­la­tion might not be as straight­for­ward as sketched above (cf. Dobrovie-​Sorin 1998, Roberts 2010). Another inter­est­ing ques­tion is how dif­fer­ent degrees of gram­mat­i­cal­iza­tion of imper­sonal con­struc­tions are linked to more gen­eral char­ac­ter­is­tics such as word order phe­nom­ena or high/​low Transitivity.

    In this respect it is inter­est­ing that we find so-​called man-​constructions in sev­eral Old Romance lan­guages (though with dif­fer­ent fre­quen­cies) regard­less of their null-​subject sta­tus: Old Span­ish om(n)e, Old Catalan/​Old Occ­i­tan (h)om, Old French om/​on etc. In later stages of the null-​subject lan­guages, man-​constructions become less fre­quent and in the case of Old Span­ish, omne got lost com­pletely in the 16th cen­tury (cf. Brown 1931). In Cata­lan hom is viewed as archaic and se is pre­ferred (cf. Bar­tra Kauf­mann 2002). How can we account for this pan-​romance evolution?

    More­over, we find dif­fer­ent degrees of gram­mat­i­cal­iza­tion among man-​constructions and in a last step of their gram­mat­i­cal­iza­tion paths man-​constructions tend to be rean­a­lyzed as plural mark­ers in some lan­guages like e.g. Abruzzese nomǝ or as a pro­noun that is able to refer to generic sub­jects as well as 1.P.pl. like Mod­ern French on. What fac­tors con­di­tion the dif­fer­ent degrees in gram­mat­i­cal­iza­tion cross-​linguistically? (cf. Giacalone Ramat/​Sansò 2007; D’Alessandro 2013).

    Other inter­est­ing ques­tions include:

    • How do imper­sonal con­struc­tions reflect dif­fer­ences in the inter­pre­ta­tion of the sub­ject as generic, arbi­trary, inclusion/​exclusion of the speaker/​or dis­course situation?
    • Why do some lan­guages clearly favor se-​constructions and why do oth­ers show a pref­er­ence for strate­gies like periphrastic passives?
    • What trig­gers p-​lability and why are there reflex­ively marked and non-​reflexively marked anticausatives?

    Work­shop Organisers

    • Peter Her­beck (Uni­ver­sity of Salzburg)
    • Bern­hard Pöll (Uni­ver­sity of Salzburg)
    • Anne Wolf­s­gru­ber (Uni­ver­sity of Salzburg)
    starting: ending: 11.11.2016 Location: , Category:

    Timeline

    Conference START 11.11.2016 END

    All deadlines have expired!

    This conference has no more open deadlines. There may be successive conferences coming up you may by interested in.

    Please check our conference list and search...

    Conference Facts

    Location , Address Erzabt-Klotz-Straße 1 Category Organiser More Info Conference Website

    Further interesting Conferences

    Currently we have no similar events listed. Please check our website regulary, subscribe to our RSS-Feed or follow us on twitter for new listings.