33.278, Calls: Pragmatics, Lexicography / Lexis, Journal in English Lexicology (Jrnl)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-33-278. Tue Jan 25 2022. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 33.278, Calls:  Pragmatics, Lexicography / Lexis, Journal in English Lexicology (Jrnl)

Moderator: Malgorzata E. Cavar (linguist at linguistlist.org)
Student Moderator: Billy Dickson
Managing Editor: Lauren Perkins
Team: Helen Aristar-Dry, Everett Green, Sarah Goldfinch, Nils Hjortnaes,
      Joshua Sims, Billy Dickson, Amalia Robinson, Matthew Fort
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: Sarah Goldfinch <sgoldfinch at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2022 00:52:47
From: Denis Jamet [denis.jamet at univ-lyon3.fr]
Subject: Pragmatics, Lexicography / Lexis, Journal in English Lexicology (Jrnl)

 
Full Title: Lexis, Journal in English Lexicology 


Linguistic Field(s): Lexicography; Pragmatics 

Call Deadline: 30-Jun-2022 

Lexis – Journal in English Lexicology – will publish its 21st issue in 2023.
It will be edited by Olivier Simonin (Université de Perpignan – Via Domitia,
France) and will deal with the topic “The lexicon and pragmatics”.
The lexicon and pragmatics

What pertains to the meaning of lexical units (whether simple or complex) and
interpretative mechanisms to yield meaning in context is a crucial question in
linguistic theory. It is exemplified by distinctions such as Oswald Ducrot’s
opposition between “signification” and “sense”. Linguists have been encouraged
by lexicographic tradition to consider that lexical meaning amounts to
dictionary entries, which can then take on a more specific meaning in a given
utterance.

The 21st issue of Lexis will explore the connections between the lexicon and
pragmatics, investigating how the lexicon interacts with linguistic
pragmatics, which accounts for the role and influence of contexts
(situational, linguistic contexts…) on the semantic interpretation of
utterances. Its purpose is to question the classical conception of the
lexicon, inherited from lexicography, which tends to regard lexical units as
stable – providing basic building blocks to construct utterance meaning
afterwards. Firth [1935] in fact already noted that “the complete meaning of a
word is always contextual”. It now seems absolutely essential to investigate
with sound scientific caution the new models that account for the lexicon and
utterance meaning in order to understand the various phenomena that pertain to
the interaction between the lexicon and pragmatics.

The study of the articulation between the lexicon, or lexical semantics, and
pragmatics, is one of the main research issues in linguistics, and many
publications focus on this topic (Zufferey et al. [2019], Carston [2019],
Depraetere & Salkie [2017], etc.). The notion that there could be a strict
separation between a rigid, abstract lexical meaning on the one hand, and
pragmatic mechanisms operating afterwards on the other, has been shown to be
highly problematic in a significant number of publications: post-Gricean
pragmatics (Sperber & Wilson [1995], Recanati [2004]) puts forward many
arguments to demonstrate that the literal meaning of utterances is partly
determined by pragmatic mechanisms: in The ham sandwich in the corner wants
more coffee, for instance, the hearer first needs to infer that ham sandwich
refers to a customer through metonymy to represent the proposition conveyed by
that utterance mentally. Some scholars have sought to include a pragmatic
component to their account of some linguistic items, like modals (Depraetere
[2019]), or to suggest an instructional component to determine meaning (Col
[2017]).

To treat the lexicon without paying attention to the use of language in
context has already created several difficulties that are well-known among
lexicographers and lexicologists, who readily acknowledge the arbitrary nature
of many definitional and classificatory choices regarding lexical units. How
can one safely draw a line between polysemy and homonymy? How many entries
should be proposed for a given word, if some senses can be inferred from
others? One should perhaps consider that only (a) part(s) of (a) concept(s)
connected with a word is activated in an utterance (Langacker’s active zones
[1991]), but this solution is not exempt from criticism (Kleiber [1999]).

More info at https://journals.openedition.org/lexis/6169




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

***************************    LINGUIST List Support    ***************************
 The 2020 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://crowdfunding.iu.edu/the-linguist-list

                        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-33-278	
----------------------------------------------------------