29.3126, Calls: Lang Acquisition, Ling Theories, Neuroling, Psycholing, Text/Corpus Ling/Japan

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-29-3126. Wed Aug 08 2018. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 29.3126, Calls: Lang Acquisition, Ling Theories, Neuroling, Psycholing, Text/Corpus Ling/Japan

Moderator: linguist at linguistlist.org (Malgorzata E. Cavar)
Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org (Helen Aristar-Dry, Robert Coté)
Homepage: https://linguistlist.org

Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Everett Green <everett at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2018 17:21:46
From: Stefan Hartmann [stefan1.hartmann at uni-bamberg.de]
Subject: Construal and Language Dynamics

 
Full Title: Construal and Language Dynamics 

Date: 06-Aug-2019 - 11-Aug-2019
Location: Nishinomiya, Japan 
Contact Person: Stefan Hartmann
Meeting Email: stefan1.hartmann at uni-bamberg.de
Web Site: https://tinyurl.com/construal-dynamics 

Linguistic Field(s): Language Acquisition; Linguistic Theories; Neurolinguistics; Psycholinguistics; Text/Corpus Linguistics 

Call Deadline: 31-Aug-2018 

Meeting Description:

Construal and Language Dynamics: Interdisciplinary and cross-linguistic
perspectives on linguistic conceptualization
 
- Theme session proposal for the 15th International Cognitive Linguistics
Conference, Nishinomiya, Japan, August 6–11, 2019 -

Convenors:
Stefan Hartmann, University of Bamberg
Michael Pleyer, University of Koblenz-Landau

Theme session description:

The concept of construal has become a key notion in many theories within the
broader framework of Cognitive Linguistics. It lies at the heart of
Langacker's (e.g. 2008) Cognitive Grammar, but it also plays a key role in
Croft’s (2012) account of verbal argument structure as well as in the emerging
framework of experimental semantics (Matlock & Winter 2015). Indirectly it
also figures in Talmy’s (2000) theory of cognitive semantics, especially in
his ''imaging systems'' approach (see e.g. Verhagen 2007).
According to Langacker (2015: 120), ''[c]onstrual is our ability to conceive
and portray the same situation in alternate ways.'' From the perspective of
Cognitive Grammar, an expression's meaning consists of conceptual content –
which can, in principle, be captured in truth-conditional terms – and its
construal, which encompasses aspects such as perspective, specificity,
prominence, and dynamicity. Croft & Cruse (2004) summarize the construal
operations proposed in previous research, arriving at more than 20 linguistic
construal operations that are seen as instances of general cognitive
processes.
Given the ''quantitative turn'' in Cognitive Linguistics (e.g. Janda 2013),
the question arises how the theoretical concepts proposed in the foundational
works of the framework can be empirically tested and how they can be refined
on the basis of empirical findings. 

Arguably one of the most important testing grounds for theories of linguistic
construal is the domain of language dynamics. Recent years have seen
increasing convergence between Cognitive-Linguistic theories on the one hand
and theories conceiving of language as a complex adaptive system on the other
(Beckner et al. 2009; Frank & Gontier 2010; Fusaroli & Tylén 2012; Pleyer
2017). In this framework, language can be understood as a dynamic system
unfolding on the timescales of individual learning, socio-cultural
transmission, and biological evolution (Kirby 2012, Enfield 2014). Linguistic
construal operations can be seen as important factors shaping the structure of
language both on a historical timescale and in ontogenetic development (e.g.
Pleyer & Winters 2014). 

Empirical studies of language acquisition, language change, and language
variation can therefore help us understand the nature of linguistic construal
operations and can also contribute to refining theories of linguistic
construal. Interdisciplinary and cross-linguistic perspectives can prove
particularly insightful in this regard. Findings from cognitive science and
developmental psychology can contribute substantially to our understanding of
the cognitive principles behind language dynamics. Cross-linguistic comparison
can, on the one hand, lead to the discovery of striking similarities across
languages that might point to shared underlying cognitive principles (e.g.
common pathways of grammaticalization, see e.g. Bybee et al. 1994, or
similarities in the domain of metaphorical construal, see Taylor 2003: 140),
but it can also safeguard against premature generalizations from findings
obtained in one single language to human cognition at large (see e.g. Goschler
2017).


Call for Papers:

For our proposed workshop, we invite contributions that explicitly connect
theoretical approaches to linguistic construal operations with empirical
evidence from e.g. corpus linguistics, experimental studies, or typological
research. In line with the cross-linguistic outlook of the main conference, we
are particularly interested in papers that compare linguistic construals
across different languages. Also, we would like to include interdisciplinary
perspectives from the behavioural and cognitive sciences.
The topics that can be addressed in the workshop include, but are not limited
to,

- the role of construal operations such as perspectivation and specificity in
language production and processing;
- the acquisition and diachronic change of linguistic categories;
- the question of whether individual construal operations that have been
proposed in the literature are cognitively realistic (see e.g. Broccias &
Hollmann 2007) and whether they can be tested empirically;
- the refinement of construal-related concepts such as “salience” or
“prominence” based on empirical findings (see e.g. Schmid & Günther 2016);
- the relationship between linguistic construal operations and domain-general
cognitive processes;
- the relationship between empirical observations and the conclusions we draw
from them about the organization of the human mind, including the viability of
concepts such as the “corpus-to-cognition” principle (see e.g. Arppe et al.
2010) or the mapping of behavioral findings to cognitive processes.
 
Please send a short abstract (max. 1 page excl. references) and a ~100-word
summary to construal.iclc15 at gmail.com by August 31, 2018. We will inform all
potential contributors in early September whether your paper can be included
in our theme session proposal. If we are unable to accommodate your
submission, you can of course submit it to the general session of the
conference. The same applies if our theme session proposal as a whole is
rejected.




------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:

              The IU Foundation Crowd Funding site:
       https://iufoundation.fundly.com/the-linguist-list

               The LINGUIST List FundDrive Page:
            https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-29-3126	
----------------------------------------------------------