Aim and focus
Dialect syntax was long considered the stepchild of dialectology (see Glaser 2000). In the meantime, this gap has been reduced, especially in relation to the modern Germanic and Romance dialects. Now it is about time to leave the comfort zone of modern dialects and to establish a historical dialect syntax and morphology. We explicitly seek for a historical dialectology as dialects are more natural than standard/written languages (Weiß 2009). An overarching goal would be a comparative compilation of these results from the individual varieties to gain general knowledge about language change.
The feasibility of a historical comparative dialectology is demonstrated by numerous phonological studies (cf. Cravens 2002). For syntax and morphology, however, we have just begun to identify and analyze historical oral varieties using fine scaled geolinguistic, statistical, and philological methods.
Therefore, there is a need to unite experts in different varieties, grammatical structures, and fields (dialectology, typology, and historical linguistics) to discuss basic questions towards a historical comparative dialect syntax and morphology:
– Are there formal or functional similarities/differences between cross-linguistic phenomena such as negation, case, word order, object marking, auxiliaries, definiteness, etc.?
– How to identify historical dialects and which types of sources are suitable for a historical comparative dialectology?
– Which (geo-)statistical methods can help to model conclusions about language change processes?
The workshop aims to establish a network for theoretically informed researchers from different linguistic fields.
Abstracts for oral presentations (20 minutes talk + discussion) must be anonymous and not exceed 500 words. References do not count toward the word count. Abstracts should clearly state the research question(s), approach, method, data and (expected) results. Please submit your anonymous abstract via: EasyChair.
Extended deadline for abstract submission: August 22, 2021
Notification of acceptance: September 15, 2021.
Registration is possible here.
Cravens, Thomas D. (2002): Comparative Historical Dialectology. Italo-Romance clues to Ibero-Romance sound change. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 231). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Glaser, Elvira (2000): Erhebungsmethoden dialektaler Syntax. In: Stellmacher, Dieter (Hrsg.): Dialektologie zwischen Tradition und Neuansatz. Stuttgart: Steiner, 258–276.
Weiß, Helmut (2009): How to define dialect and language. A proposal for further discussion. Linguistische Berichte 219, 251–270.
|13:45–13:50||– short welcome note –|
|13:50-14:45||Tamsin Blaxter (Oxford): How spatial evidence can help us understand morphosyntactic change: the dialectology of case loss in Middle Norwegian|
|14:45-15:15||Carsten Becker (Marburg) and Oliver Schallert (München): Areal variation in Middle High German: Methodological and quantitative aspects|
|15:15-15:45||Julia Hertel (Saarbrücken) and Daniel Hrbek (Osnabrück): A mystery finally unravelled: The loss of the bipartite negation marker in Middle High German|
|16:30-17:00||Andreas Klein (Mainz): Accusativism across varieties and time|
|17:00-17:30||Christina Katsikadeli (Wien) and Ioannis Fykias (Salzburg): A corpus-based analysis of adnominal genitive constructions in varieties of Post-Classical and Byzantine Greek|
|17:30-18:00||Johanna Meyer (Münster): Translation practice as an indicator of syntactic conventions? On the imitation of orality in Middle Low German 15th and 16th ct. 'folk books'|
|9:00-10:00||Bettelou Los (Edinburgh): The scope for variation in syntax|
|10:00-10:30||Adam Farris and Aryaman Arora (Georgetown): DIPI: Dependency Parsing for Ashokan Prakrit Historical Dialectology|
|11:15-11:45||Anna Pineda (Paris/ Köln): Dialectal differences in the development of differential object marking in the diachrony of Catalan|
|11:45-12:15||Louise Esher (Paris): How parallel longitudinal studies of inflection reveal areal (dis)continuities in diachrony|
|12:15-12:45||Moreno Mitrović (Berlin): Dialectological-diachronic grammar of conjunction in Archaic Indo-Iranian|
|13:45-14:15||George Walkden (Konstanz) and Alexander Pfaff (Stuttgart): Relic syntax and dialectal comparison: the adjectival article in early Germanic|
|11:45-12:15||Miguel Gutierrez Mate (Augsburg): “De-bound” morphemes in the process of creolization: the case of Palenquero Creole|
|12:15-12:45|| Coffee break |
|12:45-13:15||Nathalie Fromm (Wuppertal): Development of plural marking of former neutral a-stems in German dialects|
|13:15-14:15||– final discussion and farewell –|