25.3391, Calls: Cognitive Sci, Psycholing, Socioling, Pragmatics, Semantics/UK

The LINGUIST List linguist at linguistlist.org
Wed Aug 27 20:47:38 UTC 2014

LINGUIST List: Vol-25-3391. Wed Aug 27 2014. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 25.3391, Calls: Cognitive Sci, Psycholing, Socioling, Pragmatics, Semantics/UK

Moderators: Damir Cavar, Indiana U <damir at linguistlist.org>
            Malgorzata E. Cavar, Indiana U <gosia at linguistlist.org>

Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org
Anthony Aristar <aristar at linguistlist.org>
Helen Aristar-Dry <hdry at linguistlist.org>
Mateja Schuck, U of Wisconsin Madison

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Do you want to donate to LINGUIST without spending an extra penny? Bookmark
the Amazon link for your country below; then use it whenever you buy from

USA: http://www.amazon.com/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlist-20
Britain: http://www.amazon.co.uk/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlist-21
Germany: http://www.amazon.de/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlistd-21
Japan: http://www.amazon.co.jp/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlist-22
Canada: http://www.amazon.ca/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlistc-20
France: http://www.amazon.fr/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlistf-21

For more information on the LINGUIST Amazon store please visit our
FAQ at http://linguistlist.org/amazon-faq.cfm.

Editor for this issue: Anna White <awhite at linguistlist.org>

Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 16:47:22
From: Andrea Pizarro Pedraza [andreapizarro1 at gmail.com]
Subject: Cognitive Perspectives on Linguistic Taboo

E-mail this message to a friend:
Full Title: Cognitive Perspectives on Linguistic Taboo 

Date: 20-Jul-2015 - 25-Jul-2015
Location: Northumbria, United Kingdom 
Contact Person: Andrea Pizarro Pedraza
Meeting Email: Andrea.PizarroPedraza at kuleuven.be

Linguistic Field(s): Cognitive Science; Pragmatics; Psycholinguistics; Semantics; Sociolinguistics 

Call Deadline: 10-Sep-2014 

Meeting Description:

We propose this theme session for ICLC 13 (Northumbria, July 2015). It aims to bring together researchers working on topics related to linguistic taboo (euphemism, dysphemism, taboo words, etc.) from a Cognitive Linguistics perspective. 

In recent years, a number of contributions have underlined the social and the cognitive nature of taboo phenomena (Casas Gómez, 2009; Crespo Fernández, 2008; Chamizo Domínguez, 2004, 2009). This has led to a renewed interest in defining and theorizing about the domain’s core concepts (interdiction, taboo, euphemism, dysphemism, etc.). We believe that bringing together the scattered voices would contribute to the coherence and cohesion of the field. Likewise, it will breathe air into this new generation of studies of linguistic taboo.

We advocate for a maximalist theory of meaning, as is usual in Cognitive Linguistics (Cuyckens et al., 2009; Geeraerts; 2006). Specifically, we aim at reflecting on a new, non-essencialist framework for linguistic taboo and related phenomena that takes into account its social and cognitive facets. We ask contributors to support their theoretical reflections with empirical analyses of written or spoken data (synchronic or diachronic, but preferably quantitative and multifactorial).

We encourage papers on the following topics:

- Linguistic taboo and prototype theory: at the semasiological level, what constitutes a taboo category? How taboo (or how central) are certain taboo concepts/words? At the onomasiological level, how fuzzy are the limits of taboo categories? How salient are the expressions for a certain taboo concept? (see Geeraerts et al., 1994)

- Embodiment and Cultural Conceptualisation of Taboo: What is the role of embodiment in the conceptualisation of certain taboos (sex, physiology, illness)? How do cultural models of the body affect linguistic taboo? How do taboos vary among cultural groups and what role do they play? (see Lakoff, 1987; Sharifian, 2011; etc.)

- Construal of taboo concepts (Cognitive Metaphor, Cognitive Metonymy, vagueness…): What linguistic mechanisms participate in the expression of taboo concepts? How productive are they in the expression of taboo concepts? What source domains are more frequent? Are some taboo concepts more prone to be construed through metaphor/metonymy? (see Allan y Burridge, 1991; Crespo Fernández, 2008; Lakoff & Johnson, 2013; etc.)

- Cognitive Sociolinguistics of Linguistic Taboo: what external factors affect the variation of taboo concepts? How do linguistic and external factors interfere in the variation of taboo concepts? Can traditional assumptions on the use of taboo be confirmed (preferences of men vs. women, young vs. old, etc.)? Are there patterns of variation? (see Geeraerts, et al., 2010; Kristiansen & Dirven, 2008; Pizarro Pedraza, 2013).

- Cognitive Pragmatics and Linguistic Taboo: What elements of the pragmatic situation affect the production/reception of taboo concepts? What functions does taboo have in interpersonal communication? How is taboo related to pragmatic competence? (see Jay, 2000; Jay & Janshewitz, 2008)

- Methodologies: Can Cognitive Linguistics’ methods be applied to the study of linguistic taboo? What are the problems of working with available corpora? From a Cognitive Sociolinguistic perspective, how to deal with taboo data collection? How to deal with ethics? What are the problems of setting up an experiment about taboo topics?

Call for Papers:

We propose a theme session for ICLC 13 (Northumbria, July 2015) that aims to bring together, on the one hand, researchers working on topics related to Linguistic Taboo (euphemism, dysphemism, taboo words, etc.) that have adopted a Cognitive Linguistics perspective, and on the other hand, cognitive linguists that have been interested by Linguistic Taboo. 

Theoretically, we aim at reflecting on a cohesive framework for linguistic taboo and related phenomena (interdiction, taboo, euphemism, dysphemism, etc.) that takes into account its social and cognitive facets. We propose to consistently rethink the phenomenon of Linguistic Taboo through Prototype Theory, Embodiment, Cultural Conceptualisation, Construal, Cognitive Sociolinguistics or Cognitive Pragmatics. Linguistic Taboo, as an intrinsically complex and multifaceted phenomenon, can benefit from the non-essentialist nature of Cognitive Linguistics. 

In practice, the nature of taboo concepts has reduced the number of linguistic studies based on real data. More empirical approaches are required in order to confirm the assumptions present in the literature. Namely, an effort is needed in terms of corpora creation (particularly, spoken corpora), as well as methodological proposals for collecting taboo data.

If you are interested in contributing to this theme session, please submit a preliminary abstract (max. 500 words) to Andrea.PizarroPedraza at kuleuven.be by 10 September 2014. You will hear back from us by 15 September.

LINGUIST List: Vol-25-3391	


More information about the Linguist mailing list