LINGUIST List: Vol-33-2786. Tue Sep 13 2022. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.
Subject: 33.2786, Calls: Pragmatics/Belgium
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: Tue, 13 Sep 2022 05:27:22
From: Shima Salameh [salameh at uji.es]
Subject: Panel: ''New trends in reformulation: Theory, methods and challenges'' (18th International Pragmatics Conference)
Full Title: Panel:
Short Title: IPrA
Date: 09-Jul-2023 - 14-Jul-2023
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Contact Person: Shima Salameh
Meeting Email: salameh at uji.es
Web Site: https://pragmatics.international/page/Program2023
Linguistic Field(s): Pragmatics
Call Deadline: 01-Nov-2022
Meeting Description:
The 18th International Pragmatics Conference will be held in Brussels,
Belgium, from 9 to 14 July 2023.
Conference chair: Jürgen Jaspers (ULB)
Local Organizing Committee: Philippe De Brabanter (ULB), Liesbeth Degand
(UCLouvain), Philippine Geelhand (ULB), Mikhail Kissine (ULB), Laurence
Meurant (U Namur & FNRS)
The conference is open to all pragmatics-related topics. But the following
'special theme' has been chosen.
The shape of interaction: the pragmatics of (a)typicality
We only know the typical from the atypical, and vice versa. Pragmaticians have
made a fundamental contribution to the language sciences by showing that
interactants presume mutual knowledge of the typical to do atypical things,
flout maxims, make other people laugh. They have demonstrated that we expect
others to produce typical behaviour, that we orient to atypical interaction
and set out to restore routine conduct. They have illustrated in addition that
communication can misfire when people fail to share typical, often implicit,
signs for signalling mutual comprehension and that, because (a)typical
language use is interactive with social standards for communication, this is
not without repercussions.
At the same time there have been ample concerns about what pragmatic research
has considered typical, normal language use, and what particular types of
behaviour and linguistic choices it has been upholding as universal. Other
questions have surfaced over who gets to be seen and investigated as
commonsensically (a)typical, the extent to which individuals, rather than
socially shared discourses, can be said to own pragmatic difficulties, not to
mention over what can be considered acceptable pragmatic improvement for whom.
By focusing on the shape of interaction – that is, the resources and
modalities used, the strategies deployed, its narrative unfolding or break-up,
and its outcome for the involved participants – we seek to reinforce the
pragmatics of (a)typicality by encouraging delegates to increase pragmatic
insight into, among other things:
how populations diagnosed with autism, schizophrenia and TDAH, DLD or dyslexia
process language and engage in meaningful interaction, with members of
similarly diagnosed groups as well as undiagnosed others;
how communication is negotiated and achieved between and among deaf,
deaf-blind, and hearing people; how these groups combine signs with visual and
tactile gestures and other semiotic resources; how ideologies of sign language
identify (a)typical resources and approach video and hearing technologies as
ordinary or exceptional;
what can be identified as pragmatic difficulties and disfluencies, how these
difficulties manifest themselves and are oriented to, and to what extent these
difficulties are owned individually or rather emerge and/or disappear in
situated, interpersonal communication;
how atypical events (health crises, natural disaster, terrorist attacks) turn
everyday interaction into sites of surveillance, invite ‘atypical language’
detection technologies, or invite discourses which identify people as
atypical, threatening members of society;
how human interaction conjures up and legitimises exceptional, disruptive
events by, among others, allusive language or conspiracy theories; how
conventional, official, discourses are contested by exceptional, multimodal
protest discourses; and how human interaction forges atypical solidarity
across ethnic, social, linguistic and/or political divides.
which arguments are formulated by laypeople and experts to account for
monolingual and multilingual practices, sites or communities as (a)typical, in
what contexts; how these accounts impact on observable language use; how
opponents in debate over language define the limits of acceptable, (a)typical
arguments; and how pragmaticians as a community of practice define the
boundaries of (a)typical academic writing.
Call for Papers:
This panel explores new trends in reformulation, given the special interest
shown by recent publications (Gabarró, 2017; Kim, 2021): these works reveal a
need for addressing reformulation through new types of data, other languages
not previously addressed, or alternative theoretical frameworks.
In the last forty years, reformulation and reformulation markers have been
widely described in Romance and some Germanic Languages (Gülich & Kotschi,
1983; Roulet, 1987; Rossari, 1994; German; Robles, 2017; English; Del Saz,
2003). As a result, reformulation has been defined as a pragmatic function
distinguished from other functions such as correction or conclusion (Pons,
2017).
Nevertheless, recent work in reformulation points to some new issues to be
analyzed in depth:
a) Negation and reformulation. The relationship between reformulation and
negation has long been considered (Du Bois, 1974; Foolen, 1991). Different
approaches to negation in discourse involve correction and reformulation as
discourse strategies: metalinguistic negation (Horn, 1985; Sadock & Zwicky,
1987), cancellability-tests for Q-based implicatures (Horn, 1989),
non-descriptive, metadiscursive denial (Nolke, 1992; García Negroni, 1998),
polarity items in echoic utterances (González, 2008), or even approximative
adverbs (Pardo, 2021). For these reasons, three main research questions arise:
- How do negation and reformulation intertwine in discourse?
- Which type of linguistic categories develop reformulation meanings?
b) Reformulation in non-Indo-European languages. Reformulation has hardly been
described for Eastern or African Languages (Chinese, Japanese, Swahili,
Amharic, etc.). The study of reformulation in non-Indo-European languages
provides a more complete picture of reformulation as a universal process
shared across languages. This, in turn, triggers some new research questions:
- Are there universal features in reformulation?
- Are there clear boundaries between reformulation and other functions in
non-Indo-European languages?
- Do reformulation markers stem from the same origins in non-Indo-European
languages?
c) Reformulation and variation studies. Reformulation studies have not
addressed variation as one of their key concerns. Yet a focus on variation in
dialects, sociolects, genres, registers, etc. triggers some new research
questions:
- Is it possible to find different reformulation structures across dialects?
(e.g., Arabic dialects, Italian dialects, etc.)
- Which features are shown by reformulation markers in sign language?
- Can these features be systematized? Are there other mechanisms to express
reformulation? (e.g., special gestures)
d) Reformulation and experimental approaches. Reformulation can be approached
with experimental tools focusing on both comprehension and production
(eye-tracker, time-response measurements, etc.) (Salameh 2021). Experimental
results provide researchers with new data shedding light for understanding
reformulation. Some research questions to be answered are:
- Can reformulation be measured through new experimental techniques?
- Does reformulation show similar or different processing patterns compared to
other functions?
- Do processing patterns in reformulation markers differ across languages?
This panel welcomes contributions addressing issues (a) to (d): reformulation
is still a growing research field and many questions are still unanswered.
All contributions to the panel will have to be submitted separately as panel
contributions by the authors, before the 1 November.
>Authors must log in to their IPrA 2023 Dashboard with their IPrA username.
>Authors must go to 'Submit your Abstract Now' and write their abstract.
>Each abstract cannot contain more than 500 words, including references.
Membership is required in order to participate in this IPrA panel. More
information about membership fees:
https://pragmatics.international/page/Membership
Program:
https://pragmatics.international/page/Program2023
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*************************** 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-33-2786
----------------------------------------------------------