31.2734, Calls: Disc Analysis/Greece

Fri Sep 4 15:47:39 UTC 2020

LINGUIST List: Vol-31-2734. Fri Sep 04 2020. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 31.2734, Calls: Disc Analysis/Greece

Moderator: Malgorzata E. Cavar (linguist at linguistlist.org)
Student Moderator: Jeremy Coburn
Managing Editor: Becca Morris
Team: Helen Aristar-Dry, Everett Green, Sarah Robinson, Lauren Perkins, Nils Hjortnaes, Yiwen Zhang, Joshua Sims
Jobs: jobs at linguistlist.org | Conferences: callconf at linguistlist.org | Pubs: pubs at linguistlist.org

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

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

Editor for this issue: Lauren Perkins <lauren at linguistlist.org>
================================================================

Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2020 11:47:23
From: Matthias Klumm [matthias.klumm at philhist.uni-augsburg.de]
Subject: Continuative and contrastive discourse relations across discourse domains: Cognitive and cross-linguistic approaches

Full Title: Continuative and contrastive discourse relations across discourse domains: Cognitive and cross-linguistic approaches 

Date: 31-Aug-2021 - 03-Sep-2021
Location: Athens, Greece 
Contact Person: Matthias Klumm
Meeting Email: matthias.klumm at philhist.uni-augsburg.de

Linguistic Field(s): Discourse Analysis 

Call Deadline: 01-Nov-2020 

Meeting Description:

The goal of this workshop is to investigate the linguistic realization of
continuative and contrastive discourse relations across discourse domains,
considering in particular cognitive and cross-linguistic perspectives.

Discourse relations (also known as coherence relations or rhetorical
relations) have been examined with regard to their signalling across various
theoretical frameworks, such as RST (Mann & Thompson 1988) or SDRT (Asher &
Lascarides 2003). Discourse relations may be signalled explicitly in order to
ensure speaker-intended interpretation, or they may be left implicit (i.e.
non-signalled) and therefore would need to be inferred by the reader/hearer
from the discourse context (see Taboada 2009). The focus of previous research
has been on the explicit signalling of discourse relations by means of
discourse connectives and their discourse-relation-specific functions across
numerous languages (see, e.g., Crible 2018; Das & Taboada 2018; Gast 2019;
Sanders & Noordman 2000). As regards the construal and negotiation of
discourse coherence, discourse connectives can also be conceptualized as
carriers of “discursive glue” (Fetzer 2018: 18-20), guiding language users in
their inferencing processes to retrieve the relevant speaker-intended
implicatures to connect the constitutive parts of discourse into a meaningful
whole.

Building on the results obtained for the semantics and pragmatics of discourse
connectives, this workshop focuses on two of the most cognitively salient
kinds of discourse relations, i.e. continuative and contrastive discourse
relations, which differ in their functions with regard to how they convey how
the flow of discourse is to proceed locally (see also Fetzer 2018; Murray
1997). Continuative discourse relations (e.g. Continuation, Elaboration and
Explanation) do not indicate a local halt in the flow of discourse or a local
shift in perspective, but rather indicate that the ongoing discourse is
proceeding as ‘planned’ in spite of additional elaborations or explanations on
the current discourse topic. Upcoming discourse units are expected to be
causally congruent with preceding discourse units, and they are expected to
proceed in a temporally and logically ordered manner. Contrastive discourse
relations indicate a local change as regards discourse topic continuity, and
thus a local halt in the flow of discourse which requires a local sequential
re-organization. Fully contrastive discourse relations require full local
re-organization with respect to the discourse topic or some of its
constitutive parts, while for contrastive elaborations – or concessive
relations – only the non-congruent part(s) requires re-organization.

>From a cognitive perspective, continuative and contrastive discourse relations
have been shown to vary with regard to their production and interpretation.
Given that language users by default expect upcoming discourse units to be
temporally, logically and causally continuous with respect to the preceding
discourse (see Murray 1997; Sanders 2005), continuative discourse relations do
not seem to require additional signalling and therefore would be expected to
be easier to process than contrastive discourse relations. This is also
reflected in the linguistic realization of these two types of discourse
relations in that contrastive discourse relations are signalled more
frequently by means of discourse connectives (e.g. but or however in English;
allerdings or jedoch in German etc.) than continuative discourse relations,
which in turn are more often conveyed implicitly (see, e.g., Asr & Demberg
2012; Zufferey & Gygax 2016).

Call for Papers: 

We invite submissions that may address, but are not limited to, the following
topics:
- Representation of continuative and/or contrastive discourse relations
- Differences between continuative and contrastive discourse relations with
regard to their signalling / explicit / overt realization
- Signalled / explicit / overt in the left and/or right peripheries
- Cross-linguistic / discourse-domain-specific differences with regard to the
signalling of continuative and/or contrastive discourse relations
- Differences between spoken and written discourse with regard to the
signalling of continuative and/or contrastive discourse relations
- Cognitive processes underlying the production of continuative and/or
contrastive discourse relations as well as their interpretation in context

We invite experimental as well as corpus-based approaches across various
theoretical frameworks.

Abstracts (max. 300 words, excluding references) should be sent to the
workshop convenors by 1 November 2020:
matthias.klumm at philhist.uni-augsburg.de
anita.fetzer at philhist.uni-augsburg.de
evelien.keizer at univie.ac.at

Feedback on abstracts will be provided by 10 November 2020, and the workshop
proposal will be submitted to the organizers of SLE 2021 by 20 November 2020.

We will be notified by 15 December 2020 if our workshop proposal for SLE 2021
has been accepted. If approved, authors must submit a revised abstract of 500
words according to the SLE guidelines by 15 January 2021.

References:
Asher, Nicholas & Alex Lascarides. 2003. Logics of conversation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Asr, Fatemeh Torabi & Vera Demberg. 2012. Implicitness of discourse relations.
Proceedings of COLING 2012. 2669-2684.
Crible, Ludivine. 2018. Discourse markers and (dis)fluency: Forms and
functions across languages and registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Das, Debopam & Maite Taboada. 2018. Signalling of coherence relations, beyond
discourse markers. Discourse Processes 55(8). 743-770.
Fetzer, Anita. 2018. The encoding and signalling of discourse relations in
argumentative discourse: Evidence across production formats. In María de los
Ángeles Gómez González & J. Lachlan Mackenzie (eds.), The construction of
discourse as verbal interaction, 13-44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gast, Volker. 2019. A corpus-based comparative study of concessive connectives
in English, German and Spanish: The distribution of although, obwohl and
aunque in the Europarl corpus. In Óscar Loureda, Inés Recio Fernández, Laura
Nadal & Adriana Cruz (eds.), Empirical studies of the construction of
discourse, 151-191. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Mann, William & Sandra Thompson. 1988. Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a
functional theory of text organization. Text 8(3). 243-281.
Murray, John D. 1997. Connectives and narrative text: The role of continuity.
Memory and Cognition 25(2). 227-236.
Sanders, Ted J. M. 2005. Coherence, causality and cognitive complexity in
discourse. Proceedings/Actes SEM-05: First International Symposium on the
Exploration and Modelling of Meaning. 105-114.
Sanders, Ted J. M. & Leo G. M. Noordman. 2000. The role of coherence relations
and their linguistic markers in text processing. Discourse Processes 29(1).
37-60.
Taboada, Maite. 2009. Implicit and explicit coherence relations. In Jan
Renkema (ed.), Discourse, of course: An overview of research in discourse
studies, 127-140. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Zufferey, Sandrine & Pascal Gygax. 2016. The role of perspective shifts for
processing and translating discourse relations. Discourse Processes 53(7).
532-555.

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

***************************    LINGUIST List Support    ***************************
 The 2019 Fund Drive is under way! Please visit https://funddrive.linguistlist.org
  to find out how to donate and check how your university, country or discipline
     ranks in the fund drive challenges. Or go directly to the donation site:
               https://iufoundation.fundly.com/the-linguist-list-2019

                        Let's make this a short fund drive!
                Please feel free to share the link to our campaign:
                    https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-31-2734	
----------------------------------------------------------