** NOTE THE SUBMISSION DEADLINE HAS BEEN EXTENDED TO JANUARY 31st **

Analogy in Inflection is a workshop associated with the Twentieth International Morphology Meeting, to be held in Budapest 1-4th September 2022.

Analogy is invoked to account for a wide-range of synchronic and diachronic phenomena, yet is still only partially understood. This is true whether analogy is approached as a language-specific capacity for producing meaningful novel forms based on perceived patterns, or as a domain-general cognitive ability for reasoning about relationships between elements based on prior knowledge (Fertig 2013:12).

Work on analogy to date encompasses many theoretical disagreements. Some issues are overtly stated, including: Is analogy as a type of change (Sturtevant 1917; Lehmann 1962) or does it underlie all productive language use (Saussure 1916:179, 226-8; Meillet 1908:47; Jespersen 1922, Bloomfield 1933:275-7)? Is language transmission the locus of change (Paul 1886, Halle 1962:64-5, King 1969:78, Kiparsky 1965, Aitchison 2001:201-2; Janda 2001), or has this been overemphasised (Bolinger 1968:93,104; Haspelmath 1998; Bybee 2009)? Is paradigm levelling an extension of a non-alternating pattern (Garrett 2008:142; Hill 2007, Albright 2005; Sturtevant 1917) or is it a bias preferring nonalternating stems (Kenstowicz 1996, Kiparsky 1971, Kiparsky 1992, Jeffers & Lehiste 1979, McCarthy 2005 ), somewhere in the middle (Osthoff 1879:42-4; Wheeler 1887:31; Bybee 1980; Hock 1986:179- 82; Fertig 1999; Reiss 2006), or is the distinction between the two epiphenomenal (Garrett 2008, SimsWilliams 2016, Hill 2020)?

However, less attention has been paid to clarifying the implicit assumptions in much of this work. This workshop intends to bring together researchers to spell out assumptions often implicit in our investigations of analogy within inflectional paradigms.

Submission Guidelines

We invite anonymous 1 page abstracts (+1 page for references/figures) for 20 minute presentations plus 10 minutes for discussion.

Submissions may address, but are not limited to, the following questions:

• What models of morphology, phonology, morphosyntax and semantics are assumed in analogy research -- item & arrangement vs. word and paradigm, dynamic vs. static models, rule vs. exemplar based? To what extent do changes in these assumptions affect the viability of the account, and to what extent does the account survive across multiple assumptions?
• Does analogy require ‘innate’ or domain-specific linguistic knowledge and abilities, or does it reflect acquired or domain general skills? If both, then in what mix?
• What evidence does the individual have access to in order to ‘do’ analogy – what parts of the lexicon, which aspects of forms and meanings, and in what quantities? On what basis does this evidence come available? Do speakers use only positive evidence of similarity, or is negative evidence of dissimilarity also used (Round, Beniamine & Esher 2021)?
• Do speakers of all languages employ the same inferential processes, or might they hone them in some way to suit the language? Can this help overcome the problem of computational intractability that analogy might appear to present (Skousen 2002)?
• Do all speakers of the same language employ the same inferential processes? If there is variation, what are its parameters and limits?
• What processes are considered under the heading of analogy? Are both so-called proportional and non-proportional processes considered? Do these employ the same inferential processes or different ones?
• Does analogy cover semi-productive lexicalised patterns (Kiparsky 1992, Clahsen 1999, Pinker & Prince 1994 inter alia) or any productive pattern (Anderson 1992, Blevins & Blevins 2009, Blevins 2016)?
• What evidence is needed to identify historical cases of analogical innovation? Andersen (1980) notes when data is temporally fine-grained, a different picture may emerge than from just knowing initial and final states. Fertig (2013:80) notes that putative examples of regularisation can lack historical evidence, relying instead upon the circular logic, irregular and regular forms are found in related languages, then the irregular must be the original and the regular must be a result of analogy.
• Given the predominantly Indo-European evidence basis for many theories of analogy, can we accurately account for patterns found in non-Indo-European languages?

Note that you cannot submit the same abstract to both the main IMM session and any of the IMM workshops. Submissions are limited to one individual and one joint abstract (or two joint ones) per person. For additional information on abstract submission, check the IMM20 website: http://www.nytud.hu/imm20/ 

Committees

Organizing committee

• Erich Round
• Emily Lindsay-Smith
• Sacha Beniamine

Contact

All questions about submissions should be emailed to Emily Lindsay-Smith at e.lindsay-smith@surrey.ac.uk