29.3206, Calls: Discourse Analysis, Pragmatics/China

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-29-3206. Sat Aug 18 2018. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 29.3206, Calls: Discourse Analysis, Pragmatics/China

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: Sat, 18 Aug 2018 20:09:33
From: Sarah Blackwell [blackwel at uga.edu]
Subject: Contextualization Cues and Common Ground: Linguistic Indicators of Interpretive and Cognitive Frames

 
Full Title: Contextualization Cues and Common Ground: Linguistic Indicators of Interpretive and Cognitive Frames 
Short Title: CONTEXTCUES 

Date: 09-Jun-2019 - 14-Jun-2019
Location: Hong Kong, China 
Contact Person: Sarah Blackwell
Meeting Email: blackwel at uga.edu

Linguistic Field(s): Discourse Analysis; Pragmatics 

Call Deadline: 30-Sep-2018 

Meeting Description:

This panel will focus on how two fundamental pragmatic resources,
contextualization cues (Gumperz 1996) and common ground (Clark 1996), invoke
and convey interpretive and cognitive frames in discourse. Contributions to
this panel will examine the ways in which speakers’ linguistic choices (1)
serve as contextualization cues for interpretive frames (i.e., the activity
speakers are engaged in while speaking), and (2) reveal interlocutors’
underlying assumptions of common ground, defined by Clark as “all the
knowledge, beliefs, and assumptions” universally held in the interlocutors’
communities and “inferred from personal experience with each other”
(1996:332). Common ground thus inevitably includes shared cognitive frames, or
mental representations of our knowledge of the world consisting of
stereotypical features associated with them. This panel aims to further our
understanding of how contextualization cues frame discourse and how speakers’
verbalizations simultaneously reveal shared cognitive frames.

This panel will focus on how two fundamental pragmatic resources,
contextualization cues (Gumperz 1996) and common ground (Clark 1996), invoke
and convey interpretive and cognitive frames in discourse. Contributions to
this panel will examine the ways in which speakers’ linguistic choices (1)
serve as contextualization cues for interpretive frames (i.e., the activity
speakers are engaged in while speaking), and (2) reveal interlocutors’
underlying assumptions of common ground, defined by Clark as “all the
knowledge, beliefs, and assumptions” universally held in the interlocutors’
communities and “inferred from personal experience with each other”
(1996:332). Common ground thus inevitably includes shared cognitive frames, or
mental representations of our knowledge of the world consisting of
stereotypical features associated with them. This panel aims to further our
understanding of how contextualization cues frame discourse and how speakers’
verbalizations simultaneously reveal shared cognitive frames.

Gumperz defines a contextualization cue as “one of a cluster of indexical
signs… produced in the act of speaking that jointly index, that is, invoke a
frame of interpretation for the rest of the linguistic content of the
utterance” (1996:379). Examples of contextualization cues include prosody,
rhythm, pausing, overlaps, shifts in register or speech styles, and
code-switching, as well as discourse/pragmatic markers, which can mark off
segments in discourse, signaling a change in the social context (e.g., a
change of interpretive frame or an activity within a frame) and indicating how
the discourse should be interpreted.

Contributions to this panel may include papers on elements in discourse which
serve as contextualization cues, including, for instance, the use of
pragmatic/discourse markers, deictic and anaphoric referential expressions,
and quotative structures, as well as verbalizations revealing underlying
assumptions of shared cognitive frames, and, more generally, assumptions of
common ground. Papers may focus on native and/or L2 language use and one or
more languages and/or discourse genres, and contributors may adopt any
theoretical framework. 

References:

Clark, Herbert H. 1996. “Communities, commonalities, and communication.” In
John J. Gumperz & Stephen C. Levinson (eds.), Rethinking linguistic
relativity, 324-355. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gumperz John J. 1996. “The linguistic and cultural relativity of
conversational inference.” In John J. Gumperz & Stephen C. Levinson (eds.),
Rethinking linguistic relativity, 374-406.


Call for Papers:

Abstracts submitted for this panel should be sent directly to the panel
organizer, Sarah Blackwell at blackwel at uga.edu

Deadline for abstract submission to the organizer: September 30, 2018.

Authors whose abstracts that are accepted for the panel will be notified by no
later than October 10. These abstract must then be sent in to IPrA by 15
October 2018 at https://pragmatics.international/page/CfP




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

*****************    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-29-3206	
----------------------------------------------------------