27.2911, Calls: Discourse Analysis, Sociolinguistics/UK

Mon Jul 11 14:51:36 UTC 2016

LINGUIST List: Vol-27-2911. Mon Jul 11 2016. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 27.2911, Calls: Discourse Analysis, Sociolinguistics/UK

Moderators: linguist at linguistlist.org (Damir Cavar, Malgorzata E. Cavar)
Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org (Anthony Aristar, Helen Aristar-Dry, Robert Coté, Sara Couture)
Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
                       Fund Drive 2016
                   25 years of LINGUIST List!
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

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

Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 10:50:39
From: Hadar Netz [hadar.netz at gmail.com]
Subject: Tensions within the Repertoire of Prescribed, Prestige, and Non-prestige Forms

Full Title: Tensions within the Repertoire of Prescribed, Prestige, and Non-prestige Forms 

Date: 16-Jul-2017 - 21-Jul-2017
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom 
Contact Person: Hadar Netz
Meeting Email: hadar.netz at gmail.com

Linguistic Field(s): Discourse Analysis; Sociolinguistics 

Call Deadline: 15-Sep-2016 

Meeting Description:

The deficit approach that characterizes non-standard language as manifesting a
mental or developmental deficit was rejected half a century ago by Labov
(1969) and others (Trudgill, 1975; Godley et al., 2007; Pearson et al., 2013).
However, language ideologies preserving traces of the deficit approach persist
to this day.

The rejection of deficit views need not imply that standard language should be
rejected altogether. Indeed, standard language constitutes a unifying cultural
resource and as such is a valuable element of culture and education
(Deutscher, 2011).

Myhill (2004) has proposed to differentiate between languages, such as
English, in which the prescribed standard form is also the ''prestige-based''
form, spoken by people of highest social status, and other languages, such as
Hebrew and Arabic, in which the prescribed standard form and the
prestige-based form are not necessarily the same. It has also been argued that
in those languages in which the high status forms do not match the prescribed
standard, there are actually two types of non-standard forms: those accepted
by the elite and educated people and those that are not (Rosén, 1955; Shatil,
2014).

Still others have argued that it would be more accurate to talk about a
'repertoire' framework (e.g. Snell, 2013), placing standard and non-standard
forms as poles on a continuum. The repertoire view is based on the recognition
that speakers of a language are not speakers of either one or another form,
but rather have at their disposal a repertoire of language forms, which they
choose from in specific discursive contexts and motivations.  

The tensions between prescribed, prestige, and non-prestige forms, as well as
the repertoire of standard and non-standard forms available to speakers, give
rise to questions about what gets corrected vs. what passes as acceptable,
under what circumstances, why so, and to what effect.

The panel aims to further our understanding of the interrelations within the
repertoire of prescribed, prestige, and non-prestige forms. Researchers
investigating these issues in different languages and in different contexts
are welcome to submit their abstracts to our panel.

References:

Deutscher, G. (2011). An entry ticket to the highbrow club. Panim, 54, 4–11.
[in Hebrew]
Godley, A.J., Carpenter, B.D. & Werner, C.A. (2007).  'I’ll speak in proper
slang': Language ideologies in a daily editing activity. Reading Research
Quarterly, 42(1), 100–131.
Labov, W. (1969). The logic of nonstandard English. In: J. Alatis (Ed.),
Georgetown Monographs in Languages and Linguistics (pp. 1–44). Washington DC:
Georgetown University Press.
Myhill, J. (2004). A parameterized view of the concept of 'correctness'.
Multilingua, 23(4), 389–417.
Pearson, B.Z., Conner, T. & Jackson, J.E. (2013). Removing obstacles for
African American English–speaking children through greater understanding of
language difference.  Developmental Psychology, 49(1), 31–44. 
Rosén, H. (1955). Our Hebrew Language Viewed by Linguistic Methods. Tel-Aviv:
Am-Oved. [in Hebrew] 
Shatil, N. (2014). Developments in Contemporary Hebrew. Jerusalem: The Academy
of the Hebrew Language. [in Hebrew]
Snell, J. (2013). Dialect, interaction and class positioning at school: From
deficit to difference to repertoire. Language and Education, 27(2), 110–128.
Trudgill, Peter. (1975). Accent, Dialect and the School. London: Edward
Arnold.

Call for Papers:

If interested, please contact hadar.netz at gmail.com. Note that all abstracts
must be submitted officially to IPrA by 15 October 2016 via the conference
website: http://ipra.ua.ac.be/main.aspx?c=.CONFERENCE15&n=1516

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

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
                       Fund Drive 2016
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
            http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

This year the LINGUIST List hopes to raise $79,000. This money 
will go to help keep the List running by supporting all of our 
Student Editors for the coming year.

Don't forget to check out Fund Drive 2016 site!

http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/

For all information on donating, including information on how to 
donate by check, money order, PayPal or wire transfer, please visit:
http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

The LINGUIST List is under the umbrella of Indiana University and
as such can receive donations through Indiana University Foundation. We
also collect donations via eLinguistics Foundation, a registered 501(c)
Non Profit organization with the federal tax number 45-4211155. Either
way, the donations can be offset against your federal and sometimes your
state tax return (U.S. tax payers only). For more information visit the
IRS Web-Site, or contact your financial advisor.

Many companies also offer a gift matching program, such that
they will match any gift you make to a non-profit organization.
Normally this entails your contacting your human resources department
and sending us a form that the Indiana University Foundation fills in
and returns to your employer. This is generally a simple administrative
procedure that doubles the value of your gift to LINGUIST, without
costing you an extra penny. Please take a moment to check if
your company operates such a program.

Thank you very much for your support of LINGUIST!

----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-27-2911	
----------------------------------------------------------