29.3706, Calls: General Linguistics/Germany

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-29-3706. Wed Sep 26 2018. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 29.3706, Calls: General Linguistics/Germany

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: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 13:39:25
From: Jolanta Sinkuniene [jolanta.sinkuniene at flf.vu.lt]
Subject: Pragmatic Markers and Clause Peripheries

 
Full Title: Pragmatic Markers and Clause Peripheries 

Date: 21-Aug-2019 - 24-Aug-2019
Location: Leipzig, Germany 
Contact Person: Jolanta Sinkuniene
Meeting Email: jolanta.sinkuniene at flf.vu.lt

Linguistic Field(s): General Linguistics 

Call Deadline: 01-Nov-2018 

Meeting Description:

(Session of 52nd Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea)

The last three decades have seen an increasing interest in linguistic units
showing the link between discourse elements, expressing non-propositional
communicative stance by the speaker or managing the interaction with the
addressee. We choose the term “pragmatic marker” (PM) for those units and
regard it as encompassing, inter alia, the Lithuanian new topic introducer
''o'' ‘but, and’, the English stance indicator ''no doubt'' and the Dutch
attention-getter ''zeg'' ‘say’.

A topic that has attracted growing attention recently is the study not only of
the role of the clause peripheries in the evolution of PMs but also of the
impact of a left periphery (LP) vs right periphery (RP) position on their
range of semantic and pragmatic properties (e.g. Beeching & Detges 2014). As
to the development of PMs, for instance, the RP use of Italian ''guarda''
‘look’ has been claimed to be a by-product of the change from actual
imperative to LP attention-getter (see Waltereit 2002). The RP use of Dutch
''zeg'' too has been said to postdate its LP use (see Schermer 2007). The
validity of such hypotheses merits further examination (e.g. Van Olmen 2013)
and so do the more general questions whether any directionality can be
established for (specific) forms with both LP and RP uses and why it exists or
not.

As to the functional features of PMs, it has been argued that they serve quite
different purposes in LP than in RP (e.g. Degand 2011). The assumption is that
markers in RP in particular correlate with intersubjective, i.e.
addressee-oriented, functions like turn-yielding, hedging and stressing the
illocution. In English, according to Traugott (2012), this assumption is
indeed a tendency, though not a rule, and there is evidence from many other
languages for intersubjective RP PMs (e.g. Chor et al. 2016; Rhee 2016). 

More research is needed, though. For Japanese, for example, the case has been
made that it is LP that is best for conveying intersubjectivity (e.g. Onodera
2007). The literature has also focused mainly on Europe and East Asia (e.g.
Beeching & Detges 2014 cover Chinese, English, French, Italian, Japanese and
Korean). Moreover, to our knowledge, only a few studies have tried to map the
full range of forms and functions in one of the peripheries (e.g. Van der
Wouden & Foolen 2015 on RP in Dutch) and contrast it with the range in the
other periphery. This kind of comprehensive comparison could also prove useful
for uncovering the (dis)similarities between languages in the textual,
subjective and intersubjective meanings that they tend to express in their
peripheries (e.g. are East Asian languages more concerned with “attitudinal”
intersubjectivity than European ones in RP?; see Ghesquière et al. 2012).

In short, this workshop’s goal is to revisit the relation between the LP or RP
position of PMs and their functions, forms and evolutions. We seek to shed new
light on, inter alia, the meanings associated with LP and RP within a language
and across languages and the developments into either or both peripheries that
PMs can undergo – and thus also on the ongoing debates about phenomena like
grammaticalization, pragmaticalization and (inter)subjectification (e.g. Heine
2013; Degand & Evers-Vermeul 2015). 

Specific questions that papers may address include but are not limited to:

- which meanings do PMs express in LP and which meanings do they convey in RP?
- what, if any, are the functional differences between PMs in LP and RP?
- what, if any, are the functional (dis)similarities between LP/RP markers in
different languages/varieties?
- which source constructions end up in LP, in RP or in both and are there any
cross-linguistic tendencies?
- does any diachronic directionality exist for PMs that can occur in both LP
and RP?


Call for Papers:

For a workshop at the 2019 Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea
in Leipzig (www.sle2019.eu), we are looking for papers dealing with pragmatic
markers and the impact of left vs right periphery on their functions and
forms, from a synchronic or diachronic perspective and within a language or
across languages (papers on languages/varieties for which the phenomena are
under-documented are especially welcome).

Please send an abstract of 300 words (without references) as a Word document
to both Daniël Van Olmen (d.vanolmen at lancaster.ac.uk) and Jolanta Šinkūnienė
(jolanta.sinkuniene at flf.vu.lt) by no later than November 1, 2018.




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

*****************    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-29-3706	
----------------------------------------------------------