29.2791, Calls: Discourse Analysis, Pragmatics/China

The LINGUIST List linguist at listserv.linguistlist.org
Thu Jul 5 13:39:18 EDT 2018

LINGUIST List: Vol-29-2791. Thu Jul 05 2018. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 29.2791, Calls: Discourse Analysis, Pragmatics/China

Moderators: linguist at linguistlist.org (Damir Cavar, 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:

Editor for this issue: Kenneth Steimel <ken at linguistlist.org>

Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2018 13:39:06
From: Arne Lohmann [arne.lohmann at hhu.de]
Subject: Discourse Marker Combinations

Full Title: Discourse Marker Combinations 

Date: 09-Jun-2019 - 14-Jun-2019
Location: Hong Kong, China 
Contact Person: Arne Lohmann
Meeting Email: arne.lohmann at hhu.de

Linguistic Field(s): Discourse Analysis; Pragmatics 

Call Deadline: 15-Oct-2018 

Meeting Description:

This panel is organized by Arne Lohmann (HHU Düsseldorf, Germany) and
Christian Koops (University of New Mexico, USA)

This panel is concerned with the combinatory behavior of pragmatic markers, in
particular discourse markers (DMs), as seen in sequences such as English but
actually or you know I mean. Speakers’ propensity to combine DMs provides a
source of insight into classic questions in DM research, as well as questions
that have more recently come into focus in pragmatics research (see Lohmann &
Koops, 2016 for a recent overview). 

DM combinations have long been used as a tool in circumscribing an individual
marker’s meaning or function. For instance, Murray (1979) discusses the
combination oh by the way relative to the dispreferred well by the way to
argue that oh, but not well, has a topic introducing function. Similarly,
Aijmer (2002) argues that the frequent use of sort of in the sequence sort of
you know demonstrates sort of’s interpersonal or affective meaning. 

Another theoretically relevant aspect of DM combinations is their varying
degree of fixedness. While some combinations can be considered loose, ad
hoc-formations, others show evidence of developing into fixed expressions,
e.g. English oh well (Schourup 2001) and French bon ben (Waltereit 2007). Both
of these combinations have been discussed as possible instances of
univerbation, reflected in a non-compositional function of the sequence as a
whole. For oh well, Schourup (2001: 1031) finds that the sequence “has become
conventionalized as a combined form to indicate resignation.” 

A third perspective on DM combinations asks why some markers tend to co-occur
while others do not. For instance, it has been argued that speakers
preferentially combine markers that are more general in meaning with more
specific ones (Oates 2001; Fraser 2015), as seen in preferred combinations of
English contrastive DMs such as but conversely (Fraser 2013). A different
motivation has been observed by Maschler (1994). She finds that modern Hebrew
DMs, when used in sequence, combine discursive moves at specific, distinct
levels of discourse, e.g. when the referential marker axshav ‘now’ is combined
with the interpersonal marker tagídi li ‘tell me’.

Finally, a growing number of studies use DM sequencing as a window on the
discourse-functional structure of the left clause periphery. Given that most
DMs show strong ordering restrictions relative to each other, DM combinations
can be seen as revealing a larger system of paradigmatic slots. Models of DM
sequencing slots for French (Vicher & Sankoff 1989) and English (Koops &
Lohmann 2015, Tagliamonte 2016) show that the ordering of DMs is surprisingly
systematic and may indicate an “emergent syntax” of DMs (Vicher & Sankoff
1989). Moreover, Lohmann & Koops (2016) argue that the placement of a DM in
alternative slots, e.g. so in and so versus so and, brings out the marker’s
capacity to function at different levels of discourse organization. 

Call for Papers:

Overall, the exciting and growing work on DM combinations shows that the
phenomenon holds great potential for informing a variety of theoretical
questions in pragmatics. For the proposed panel we invite papers addressing
any aspect within this wide range of questions, including both empirical
(methodological) or theoretical contributions.

Submission details:

Abstracts of 20-minute presentations (+10 minutes Q&A) should be 250 - 500
words in length (not including references and data) and should be submitted
via the conference website
(https://pragmatics.international/general/custom.asp?page=CfP) and sent via
email to Arne Lohmann (arne.lohmann at hhu.de) and Chris Koops (ckoops at unm.edu)
by October 15, 2018.


Due to space limitations, we could not list all references mentioned in the
text here, see
http://arnelohmann.de/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/WEBPAGE_IPRA_CfP.pdf for a
complete list of references.


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

              The IU Foundation Crowd Funding site:

               The LINGUIST List FundDrive Page:

LINGUIST List: Vol-29-2791	

More information about the LINGUIST mailing list