BOOK OF ABSTRACTS

52nd Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea 21st – 24th August 2019 Leipzig University, SLE 2019 Book of Abstracts

SOCIETAS LINGUISTICA EUROPAEA: President: Mira Ariel (Tel Aviv), Vice-President: Nikolaus Ritt (Wien), President-Elect: Teresa Fanego (), Secretary: Bert Cornillie (Leuven), Treasurer: Lachlan Mackenzie (), Editor FL: Olga Fischer (Amsterdam) Editor FLH: Muriel Norde (Humboldt-), Conference Manager: Olga Spevak (Toulouse).

ORGANISING COMMITTEE: Chair: Martin Haspelmath and Susanne Maria Michaelis Members: Darja Dermaku-Appelganz, Ye Jingting, Nina Julich-Warpakowski, and Maximilian Krötel. SLE Conference Manager: Olga Spevak (Toulouse), Treasurer: Lachlan Mackenzie (Amsterdam).

PROGRAMME COMMITTEE: Chair of the General Session: Nikolaos Lavidas (), Chair of Workshops: Balthasar Bickel (Zurich).

Members: Werner Abraham (/), Karin Aijmer (), Shanley Allen (Kaiserslautern), Cormac Anderson (MPI-SHH), Reili Argus (), Mira Ariel (Tel Aviv), Gilles Authier (EPHE, ), Jóhanna Barðdal (), Edith L. Bavin (La Trobe), Dorothee Beermann (NTNU, Trondheim), Valeria Belloro (Querétaro), Marcella Bertuccelli (Pisa), Theresa Biberauer Cambridge /Stellenbosch), Walter Bisang (), Anna Bondaruk (Lublin), Kasper Boye (), Wayles Browne Cornell University), Concepción Cabrillana (Santiago de Compostela), Anne Carlier (), Michela Cennamo (Naples), Denis Creissels (Lyon), Sonia Cristofaro (Pavia), Hubert Cuyckens (Leuven), Pierluigi Cuzzolin (Bergamo), Östen Dahl (), Andriy Danylenko (Pace Univ.), Barbara De Cock (Leuven), Jesus De La Villa (), Walter De Mulder (), Nicole Delbecque (Leuven), Adina Dragomirescu (Romanian Academy, ), Michael Dunn (Uppsala), Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kolaczyk (Poznań), Martin Ehala (), Victoria Escandell-Vidal (UNED), Urtzi Etxeberria (CNRS-IKER), Caleb Everett (Miami), Thorhallur Eythorsson (Iceland), Malgorzata Fabiszak (Poznań), Benjamin Fagard (CNRS), Teresa Fanego (Santiago de Compostela), Ad Foolen (Radboud), Livio Gaeta (Torino), Maria Del Pilar Garcia Mayo (Basque Country), Antonio Garcia-Gomez (Alcalá), Michalis Georgiafentis (Athens), Klaus Geyer (Southern ), Anna Giacalone (Pavia), Chiara Gianollo (), Spike Gildea (), Alessandra Giorgi (), Francisco Gonzalvez Garcia (Almería), Stefan Th. Gries (UCSB), Eitan Grossman (Jerusalem), Eva Hajicova (), Camiel Hamans (Poznan), Bjorn Hansen (Regensburg), Alexander Haselow (), Martin Haspelmath (MPI-SHH), Katharina Haude (CNRS), Dag Haug (), Lars Hellan (NTNU, Trondheim), Eugen Hill (Köln), Hans Henrich Hock ( Illinois at Urbana-Champaign), Richard Huyghe (), Aritz Irurtzun (CNRS-IKER), Andra Kalnača (), Katalin E. Kiss (Hungarian Academy, ), Seppo Kittila (Helsinki), Ekkehard Koenig (Berlin), Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (Stockholm), Bernd Kortmann (Freiburg), Livia Kortvelyessy (Kosice), Gitte Kristiansen (Madrid), Martin Kummel (Jena), Bob Ladd (), Meri Larjavaara (Åbo Akademi, Helsinki), Pierre Larrivee (Caen), Elisabeth Leiss (Munich), Diana Lewis (Aix-), Suliko Liiv (Tallinn), José Lima (Lisboa), Maria-Rosa Lloret (), Maria Jose Lopez-Couso (Santiago de Compostela), Lucia Loureiro- (Balearic Islands), Silvia Luraghi (Pavia), Ian Maddieson (New Mexico), Andrej Malchukov (Mainz), Francesca Masini (Bologna), Dejan Matic (Münster), Belen Mendez Naya (Santiago de Compostela), Helle Metslang (), Amina Mettouchi (EPHE/CNRS-LLACAN), Susanne Maria Michaelis (Leipzig), Matti Miestamo (Helsinki), Marianne Mithun (Santa Barbara), Liljana Mitkovska (FON), Edith Moravcsik (Wisconsin-Milwaukee), Nicola Munaro (Venice), Pieter Muysken (Radboud), Maria Napoli (Eastern Piedmont), Kiki Nikiforidou (Athens), Tatiana Nikitina (CNRS), Jan Nuyts (Antwerpen), Karl Pajusalu (Tartu), Carita Paradis (Lund), Marco Passarotti (Milan), Theodossia-Soula Pavlidou (), Thomas Payne (Oregon), Vladimir Plungian (), Lola Pons-Rodriguez (), Rodrigo Pérez-Lorido (), Angela Ralli (), Eric Reuland (Utrecht), Nikolaus Ritt (Vienna), Jorge Emilio Rosés Labrada (Alberta), Anna Roussou (Patras), Francisco Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez (Rioja), Cinzia Russi (Texas at Austin), Andrea Sansò (Insubria), Barbara Schlücker (Leipzig), Stephan Schmid (), Ilja Serzant (Leipzig), Magda Sevcikova (Prague), Petra Sleeman (Amsterdam), Elena Smirnova (Neuchâtel), John Charles Smith (Oxford), Augusto Soares Da Silva (Braga), Andrey N. Sobolev (St. Petersburg), Andrew Spencer (Essex), Olga Spevak (Toulouse),

2

SLE 2019 Book of Abstracts

Elisabeth Stark (Zurich), Sabine Stoll (Zurich), Cristina Suarez-Gomez (Balearic Islands), Inesa Šeškauskienė (), Catherine Travis (Canberra), Beata Trawinski IDS Mannheim), Jarmila Tárnyiková (Olomouc), Johan van der Auwera (Antwerp), Guido Vanden Wyngaerd (Leuven), Arie Verhagen (Leiden), Anna Verschik (Tallinn), Jean-Christophe Verstraete (Leuven), Letizia Vezzosi (), Nigel Vincent (Manchester), Jacqueline Visconti (), Søren Wichmann (MPI-EVA), Björn Wiemer (Mainz), Jacek Witkos (Poznan), Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (), Magdalena Wrembel (Poznan), Il-Il Yatziv-Malibert (INALCO), Sarka Zikanova (Prague).

SLE 2019 BOOK OF ABSTRACTS EDITOR Olga Spevak Editor’s note: Abstracts that have not been updated in due time (especially, abstracts in pdf) have not been included as well as abstracts that would damage the whole document.

3

SLE 2019 Book of Abstracts

Epistemological challenges in corpus analyses of alternating constructions

Thomas Belligh (Ghent University)

Keywords: alternating constructions, corpus linguistics, judgments on the basis of intuition, causality, cognitive subpersonal mechanisms Schedule: We 11.30 Room 15 Over the last 20 years quantitative corpus studies have yielded many insights into the regularities involved in numerous alternations in various languages (cf. Colleman 2009, De Vaere et al. 2018, Gries 2003, Gries & Stefanowitsch 2004, Geleyn 2017, Wolk et al. 2013, among others). However, such corpus-based studies of alternating constructions face a number of epistemological challenges. This paper identifies three epistemological challenges for the corpus-based study of alternating constructions and outlines a proposal to deal with these challenges. First, corpus studies face the difficulty to distinguish between normative language rules and regularities in language use. While both normative rules and regularities in language use can be determined from a quantitative and experimentally controlled perspective (Cowart 1997, Gibson & Fedorenko 2013, Schütze 1996, Wasow & Arnold 2005) and while normative rules emerge diachronically out of regularities in language use, rules and regularities have a different ontological, epistemic and psychological status and therefore require to be studied in their own right (Coseriu 1985, Itkonen 1978, 1997, 2006, 2016, Newmeyer 2003, Willems 2012). Second, because correlation does not equal causation (cf. Lass 1980), caution is required in the use of causal language when describing alternations that are studied by means of a purely observational corpus approach. While correlations between constructions and parameters can be described in terms of predictions in statistical models, this does not entail that one has identified the factors that causally govern speakers’ choices. Third, linguists sometimes pay little attention to the difference between functional causes of behavior and mediating mental mechanisms (cf. De Houwer 2011, De Houwer et al. 2017, Hughes et al. 2016). The finding that there is a functional causal relation between a parameter and the choice for a construction does not directly bear on the nature of the mediating mental mechanisms responsible for this finding (cf. Bechtel 2008, Bechtel & Wright 2009). Corpus findings constitute therefore no direct evidence for postulating underlying mediating mechanisms on the subpersonal cognitive level responsible for certain outcomes (cf. Arppe et al. 2010, Sandra 1998, Stefanowitsch 2011). These three epistemological challenges can be confronted in various ways. The paper argues that corpus analyses of alternating constructions should take into account the difference between regularities and rules and study both by means of an adequate methodology, viz. corpus research as such and a combination of corpus research and experimentally controlled introspective intuition-based judgments tasks respectively. Second, while correlational corpus findings cannot be used to make claims about causality, they can be used to generate hypotheses for subsequent behavioral experiments that can shed some light on the functional causal relationships between specific parameters and speakers’ choices. Third, corpus findings can shed light on underlying mental mechanisms, if used to support or falsify independently established and explicit psycholinguistic hypotheses (cf. Gries 2003, 2017, Gilquin & Gries 2009, Stefanowitsch 2011). References Arppe, A., Gilquin, G., Glynn, D., Hilpert, M., & Zeschel, A. (2010). Cognitive corpus linguistics: Five points of debate on current theory and methodology. Corpora, 5(1), 1-27.

43 SLE 2019 Book of Abstracts

Bechtel, W. (2008). Mental mechanisms : philosophical perspectives on cognitive neuroscience. New (N.Y.): Erlbaum. Bechtel, W., & Wright, C. (2009). What is psychological explanation. In P. Calvo & J. Symons (Eds.), Routledge companion to the philosophy of psychology (pp. 113–130). New York: Routledge. Colleman, T. (2009). Verb disposition in argument structure alternations: a corpus study of the dative alternation in Dutch. Language Sciences, 31(5), 593-611. Coseriu, E. (1985). Linguistic competence: what is it really?. The Modern Language Review, 80(4), xxv-xxxv. Cowart, W. (1997). Experimental syntax: Applying objective methods to sentence judgments. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications De Houwer, J. (2011). Why the cognitive approach in psychology would profit from a functional approach and vice versa. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(2), 202-209. De Houwer, J., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Barnes-Holmes, Y. (2017). What is cognition? A functional- cognitive perspective. In S. C. Hayes and S. G. Hofmann (Eds.), Core Processes of Cognitive Behavioral Therapies. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger. De Vaere, H., De Cuypere, L., & Willems, K. (2018). Alternating constructions with ditransitive “geben” in present-day German. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. Geleyn, T. (2017). Syntactic variation and diachrony. The case of the Dutch dative alternation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 13(1), 65-96. Gibson, E., & Fedorenko, E. (2013). The need for quantitative methods in syntax and semantics research. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(1-2), 88-124. Gilquin, G., & Gries, S. T. (2009). Corpora and experimental methods: A state-of-the-art review. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 5(1), 1-26. Gries, S. T. (2003). Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics: A study of particle placement. New York: Continuum. Gries, S. T. (2017). Ten lectures on quantitative approaches in cognitive linguistics : corpus- linguistic, experimental, and statistical applications. Leiden: Brill. Gries, S. T., & Stefanowitsch, A. (2004). Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on alternations. International journal of corpus linguistics, 9(1), 97-129. Hughes, S., De Houwer, J., & Perugini, M. (2016). The functional-cognitive framework for psychological research: Controversies and resolutions. International Journal of Psychology, 51, 4-14. Itkonen, E. (1978). Grammatical theory and metascience : a critical investigation into methodological and philosophical foundations of Autonomous linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Itkonen, E. (1997). The social ontology of meaning. SKY 1997 Yearbook of the Linguistic Association of : 49–80. Itkonen, E. (2006). Three fallacies that recur in linguistic argumentation. Speech and Language, 26(4): 221-225. Itkonen, E. (2016). An assessment of (mentalist) cognitive semantics. Public Journal of Semiotics 7(1), 1–42. Lass, R. (1980). On explaining language change. Cambridge: Cambridge university press. Newmeyer, F. J. (2003). Grammar is grammar and usage is usage. Language, 79(4), 682-707. Sandra, D. (1998). What linguists can and can't tell you about the human mind: A reply to Croft. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(4), pp. 361-378. Schütze, C. T. (1996). The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

44

SLE 2019 Book of Abstracts

Stefanowitsch, A. (2011). Cognitive linguistics as cognitive science. In M. Callies, W. Keller, & A. Lohofer (Eds.), Bi-directionality in the cognitive sciences (pp. 295–310). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Wasow, T., & Arnold, J. (2005). Intuitions in linguistic argumentation. Lingua, 115(11), 1481-1496. Willems, K. (2012). Intuition, introspection and observation in linguistic inquiry. Language sciences, 34(6), 665-681. Wolk, C., Bresnan, J., Rosenbach, A., & Szmrecsanyi, B. (2013). Dative and genitive variability in Late Modern English: Exploring cross-constructional variation and change. Diachronica, 30(3), 382-419.

Suffixes -g- and -alt- in Hill Mari: two types of middle voice

Daria Belova & Vadim Dyachkov (Moscow State University & Institute of Linguistics (Russian Academy of Science))

Keywords: morphosyntax, middle voice, deadjectival verbs, Uralic languages, Hill Mari Schedule: We 15.30 Room 7 The category of middle voice in Hill Mari (< Finno-Ugric) has been described in grammars and comparative works, sее Galkin (1958, 1966), Salo (2006, 2015), Savatkova (2002). At the same time, the concept of middle voice has been elaborated in theoretical literature (cf. Kemmer (1993), Alexiadou (2014)). However, the middle voice and related categories are understudied in Hill Mari since their semantic properties were not explored in detail. Our data come from fieldwork (both elicitation and corpus analysis) in the village of Kuznetsovo and some neighbouring villages (Mari El, ) in 2016-2018. We will argue that two productive suffixes of middle voice can be identified in Hill Mari: -alt- and -g- (along with an unproductive suffix -n-). It is only the -alt- suffix which is treated as a voice marker in traditional grammars. The -g- suffix is treated as a derivational affix and is not associated to the category of voice, cf. Savatkova (2002: 181, 217) stating that the -alt- suffix is a voice marker but the -g- suffix derives verbs from nouns. The two markers differ in their semantic properties although they can be both qualified as middle voice markers. First of all, the -g- suffix participates in causative-inchoative alternation (in terms of Hale & Keyser (2002). Its counterpart is the transitive/causative suffix -t-, see (1)-(4): (1) mӛn’-ӛn licä-em jakšar-g-en 1SG-GEN face-POSS.1SG red-MED1-PRET.3SG ‘My face reddened’. (2) mӛn’ vas’a-m jakšar-t-em 1SG V.-ACC red-CAUS-NPST.1SG ‘I disgrace Vasya (lit. make Vasya red)’. (3) mašin p d r-g-en car break-MED1-PRET.3SG ‘The car is broken’. (4) vas’a mašin p d r-t-en V. car break-CAUS-PRET.3SG ‘Vasya broke the car’.

45