29.4440, Calls: Discourse Analysis, Pragmatics, Semantics, Sociolinguistics/Spain

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-29-4440. Mon Nov 12 2018. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 29.4440, Calls: Discourse Analysis, Pragmatics, Semantics, Sociolinguistics/Spain

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: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 12:50:56
From: Leonor Ruiz-Gurillo [Leonor.Ruiz at ua.es]
Subject: Panel 5. Humor and Pragmatic Inferences

 
Full Title: Panel 5. Humor and Pragmatic Inferences 

Date: 23-Oct-2019 - 25-Oct-2019
Location: University of Alicante (San Vicente del Raspeig), Spain 
Contact Person: Leonor Ruiz-Gurillo
Meeting Email: cihv2019 at gmail.com

Linguistic Field(s): Discourse Analysis; Pragmatics; Semantics; Sociolinguistics 

Call Deadline: 31-Jan-2019 

Meeting Description:

(Session of International Conference on Verbal Humor)

Humor is fact frequently associated to the infringement of certain maxims or
principles. Following Grice’s proposal (1975), humor violates the first maxim
of quality (“Do not say what you believe to be false”). This explains why it
is often associated with lying and the non-bona fide communication (Raskin,
1985, Attardo y Raskin, 1991, Attardo, 2008, Partington, 2006, Shilikhina,
2017). While bona fide communication is cooperative, the non-bona fide
discourse is not. Thus, on the one hand, the speaker is not committed to the
truth of what s/he says and, on the other hand, the hearer is aware that it
does not exist this commitment (Raskin, 2007: 99). Apart from humor, other
forms of non bona fide discourse would be irony, sarcasm, absurd communication
and hypocrisy (Shilikhina, 2017).  In this way, the adoption of a humorous
mode puts the listeners on alert that their interlocutor is acting in a
humorous manner. In the humor interpretation process, there are several types
of inferences, which have been described in detail by several theories such as
the Relevance Theory, the Cognitive theory of humor, the General Theory of
Verbal Humor or the neo-Gricean models. Accordingly, the Relevance theory
argues that the addressee has to be able to identify the speaker’s humorous
intention (Curcó, 1996) and to seek for the optimal relevance (Yus, 2016).
However, the neo-Gricean model developed by the GRIALE research group (Ruiz
Gurillo, 2012; Rodríguez Rosique, 2013) proposes connecting humor to the
infringement of principles of Levinson (2000), so that their infringement,
despite being contextual, is related to generalized inferences.


Call for Papers:

In this panel we welcome approaches to the description and explanation of
inferences that manifest in humor from several perspectives, both the commonly
accepted in the humor research, as well as those more innovative or novel.
Therefore, presentation on any of these lines or the like will be accepted: 

-Conversational inferences in humor.
-Infringement of maxims or principles. 
-The role of the listener in the humor inferences: recognition, comprehension,
appreciation, production… 
-Inferential strategies for the recognition and comprehension of humor.  
-Linguistic elements involved in the humor inferences.

Submission Information:

http://griale.dfelg.ua.es/cihv2019/en/call-for-papers/

Bibliography: 

Attardo, S. (2008). A primer for the linguistics of humor. En Raskin, V.
(Ed.), The primer of humor research (pp. 101–155). Berlín: Mouton de Gruyter.
Attardo, S. y V. Raskin (1991). Script theory revis(it)ed: Joke similarity and
joke representation model. Humor, 4 (3–4), pp. 293–347.
Brône, G., Feyaerts, K. and Veale, T. (2006). Introduction: Cognitive
linguistics approaches to humor.  Humor, 19(3), pp. 203–228.
Curcó, C. (1996). The implicit expression of attitudes, mutual manifestness
and verbal humour. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 8, pp. 89-99.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. En Cole, P. y J. Morgan (Eds.),
Syntax and Semantics, 3 (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
Hay, J. (2000). Functions of humor in the conversations of men and women.
Journal of pragmatics, 32(6), 709-742.
Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive Meanings. The Theory of Generalized
Conversational Implicature. Cambridge: Massachusetts. 
Partington, A. (2006). The Linguistics of Laughter. New York: Routledge.
Raskin, V. (1985). Semantic mechanisms of humor. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Raskin, V. (2007). The sense of humor and the truth. En Ruch, W. (Ed.), The
sense of humor: Explorations of a personality characteristic (pp. 95-108).
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 
Rodríguez Rosique, S. (2013). The power of inversion. Irony, from utterance to
discourse. En Ruiz Gurillo, L. y Alvarado Ortega, Mª B. (Eds.), Irony and
humor: From pragmatics to discourse (pp. 17–38). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ruiz Gurillo, L. (2012). La lingüística del humor en español. Madrid: Arco
Libros.
Shilikhina, K. (2017). Metapragmatic markers of the bona fide and non-bona
fide modes of communication.En Chlopicki, W. and D. Brzozowska (Eds.),
Humorous Discourse (pp. 107-130). Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.
Yus, F. (2016).  Humour and Relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.




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

*****************    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-29-4440	
----------------------------------------------------------