33.3091, Confs: Applied Ling, Comp Ling, Pragmatics, Psycholing/France

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-33-3091. Sat Oct 08 2022. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 33.3091, Confs: Applied Ling, Comp Ling, Pragmatics, Psycholing/France

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

Hosted by Indiana University

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, 08 Oct 2022 23:20:56
From: Laurent Roussarie [laurent.roussarie at univ-paris8.fr]
Subject: Understanding the Implicit: A question at the crossroads of disciplines

 
Understanding the Implicit: A question at the crossroads of disciplines 

Date: 05-Oct-2023 - 06-Oct-2023 
Location: Nanterre, France 
Contact: Béatrice Godart-Wendling 
Contact Email: Beatrice.Godart-Wendling at cnrs.fr 
Meeting URL: https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=implicite23 

Linguistic Field(s): Applied Linguistics; Computational Linguistics; Pragmatics; Psycholinguistics 

Meeting Description: 

It is only very recently in the history of ideas and disciplines that the
question of implicitness has arisen in fields as diverse as linguistics,
psycholinguistics, literary theory, reading didactics and computational
linguistics. It was not until the 1970s that linguistics took hold of this
notion and that different (more or less formalist) theoretical approaches
appeared, as well as the production of precise analyses of expressions acting
as triggers for implicit meanings. Studies in psycholinguistics began in the
1980s and often used the experimental method to describe the cognitive
processes that allow access to implicit meanings, especially in populations
where this access seems compromised. These studies are characterized by
examining each type of implicitness in isolation using various protocols with
different populations. In literature, theories of interpretation and reception
have problematised the notions of implicit author and reader in order to
account for the different levels of reading induced by fictional stories. In
the context of reading didactics, the question of understanding implicitness
as a marker of the social background and developmental age of pupils arose in
the 1990s and the studies carried out
analysed implicit forms within the very general framework of the notion of
inference. Research in the field of computational linguistics began in the
2010s and has led, mainly for the English language, to the development of
annotation schemes coupled with learning systems.
However, there are still many areas to be explored for a more operational
theorization of implicitness. The boundaries that mark its definition are
blurred and there is also some disagreement about the nature of the language
phenomena that may contribute to its extension. In addition, there is a
fragmentation of studies on the topic, with each type of implicitness being
analysed in detail, but independently of the others. While this type of
scientific practice is obviously legitimate and fruitful in itself, it does
not contribute to the development of a unified theory, as Sperber and Wilson
(1989), for example, attempted to do. Agreement on the Gricean approach (1975)
to implicitness as the “intended meaning” is intrinsically not sufficient to
carry out analyses, because it leads – like a sieve whose holes are too big –
to consider that everything in language belongs to implicitness.
Is it possible to think of implicitness in the singular? Does the
heterogeneity of the linguistic phenomena covered by this term
(presupposition, implicatures, irony, tropes, implicit argumentation,
intonation, etc.) suggest that it would be more relevant to reason in the
plural in terms of types of implicitness? In other words, is it possible to
develop an explanatory approach, while differentiating the linguistic
properties governing these different types, which would relate these different
meanings of implicitness, and which would be usable by all the disciplines
working on this issue?
>From an epistemological point of view, the frequent but vague use of the term
“implicit” in the analyses suggests that this expression is in the process of
being theorized, so that it corresponds only to a notion rather than an
operative concept. Can its current strong performance be explained by the use
of researchers’ intuition and the relatively loose nature of its definitional
content, which allow its use without further scrutiny? This colloquium aims to
propose some answers to these questions by confronting the needs and
theoretical contributions that have emerged in the fields of philosophy,
linguistics, psycholinguistics, didactics of comprehension, literary theory
and computer linguistics.
 






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

***************************    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-33-3091	
----------------------------------------------------------