36.2124, Confs: (De-)Polarization: New Practices of Invitational (Science) Communication (Germany)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-36-2124. Thu Jul 10 2025. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 36.2124, Confs: (De-)Polarization: New Practices of Invitational (Science) Communication (Germany)

Moderator: Steven Moran (linguist at linguistlist.org)
Managing Editor: Valeriia Vyshnevetska
Team: Helen Aristar-Dry, Mara Baccaro, Daniel Swanson
Jobs: jobs at linguistlist.org | Conferences: callconf at linguistlist.org | Pubs: pubs at linguistlist.org

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Editor for this issue: Valeriia Vyshnevetska <valeriia at linguistlist.org>

================================================================


Date: 09-Jul-2025
From: Susanne Winkler [susanne.winkler at uni-tuebingen.de]
Subject: (De-)Polarization: New Practices of Invitational (Science) Communication


(De-)Polarization: New Practices of Invitational (Science)
Communication
Short Title: kokokom2026
Theme: Linguistic and rhetorical strategies and practices of
polarization and de-polarization; Linguistic and rhetorical strategies
of negotiating common ground; Invitational and bridging rhetoric;
Linguistic and rhetorical methods of investigating polarization and
common ground;

Date: 29-Jan-2026 - 30-Jan-2026
Location: University of Tübingen, Germany
Contact: Lily Tonger-Erk
Contact Email: anmeldung at kokokom.de
Meeting URL: https://kokokom.de/

Linguistic Field(s): Discourse Analysis; General Linguistics;
Philosophy of Language; Pragmatics; Text/Corpus Linguistics

Submission Deadline: 31-Aug-2025

Organizers: Prof. Dr. Olaf Kramer, PD Dr. Lily Tonger-Erk, Prof. Dr.
Susanne Winkler
Democracies thrive on dissent – on speech and counter-speech, on
dialogue and compromise. But what happens when understanding in
certain areas of public discourse becomes increasingly unattainable?
When heightened polarization hinders dialogue and entrenches
divisions?
In debates on topics such as climate, migration, or gender, it is
becoming increasingly evident – as research on public opinion
formation shows – that facts and arguments alone rarely succeed
against firmly held, identity-based beliefs. How, then, can we still
reach or even persuade those who hold different views? What rhetorical
and linguistic means might help to prevent polarization or counteract
it once it has taken root? What communicative strategies promote
understanding and prove effective across different settings and media?
This interdisciplinary conference explores how communication can be
shaped under conditions of societal polarization. The focus lies
particularly on inviting forms of (science) communication – in both
face-to-face situations (e.g. in classrooms, panel discussions, or
parliamentary debates) and digital contexts (e.g. on social or
journalistic media platforms). The situational and medial conditions
of communication create both opportunities and limitations for
de-polarizing strategies.
The conference is framed by the metaphor of communication as an
“invitation,” drawing on the influential concept of invitational
rhetoric (Foss & Griffin 1995) or inviting understanding (Foss &
Griffin 2020) in American rhetorical studies. This approach emphasizes
offering perspectives without aiming for immediate persuasion and
designing communication in ways that allow all participants to feel
acknowledged and safe. The conference aims to bring this rhetorical
concept into dialogue with other disciplines and to explore its
potential for cross-disciplinary exchange.
At the same time, the limits of invitational approaches must be
critically examined – both in terms of media (invitational rhetoric
was originally developed for face-to-face interaction) and in relation
to communicative situations. Not every context allows for or deserves
symmetrical dialogue. What if one party systematically relies on
devaluation, disinformation, or hate speech? How does an invitational
model respond to intentionally destructive, anti-democratic, or
manipulative forms of communication? Here, the approach risks reaching
its limits – for example, when the pursuit of mutual recognition
inadvertently legitimizes or normalizes inhumane or evidence-resistant
positions.
As podcaster and activist Dylan Marron has pointedly stated: “Empathy
is not endorsement” (Marron 2022, p. 127). In his podcast
Conversations with People Who Hate Me, Marron invited individuals who
had insulted or threatened him online – not to convert them, but to
speak to their humanity through dialogue. His stance: one can listen
with empathy without accepting or justifying the views expressed. This
distinction between listening and agreeing is key to a thoughtful
practice of invitational communication – and simultaneously a
challenge, especially when boundaries are crossed.
American author and essayist Rebecca Solnit has argued in the context
of polarized U.S. politics that it can no longer be the role of
Democrats to seek understanding and reconciliation with Republicans if
the latter show no interest in dialogue. The naïve belief that “if
we’re nicer to the other side there will be no other side, just one
big happy family” only leads, she warns, to a “some muddled cocktail
of moral relativism and therapists’ ‘everyone’s feelings are valid’”
(Solnit 2020).
A central focus of the conference will be linguistic and rhetorical
strategies that either fuel or counteract polarization in public
discourse. A prime example can be found in the work of Dylan Marron,
where exclusionary, homophobic, and hateful language is directed at
him. Linguistic polarization also often manifests in the strategic
creation or destruction of common ground. Inclusive pronouns such as
we or us can foster belonging, while exclusive forms such as they,
them, or those people emphasize separation and exclusion. Rhetorical
questions like those posed by Nobel laureate Christiane
Nüsslein-Volhard during the gender diversity debate – “Are they now
trying to abolish biology classes? Do we no longer want to know who we
are and how sex is determined?” (Emma, Aug. 22, 2022, 4; our
translation) – illustrate this dynamic. Here, multiple rhetorical and
linguistic strategies intersect: the use of pronouns (cf. Kämper 2024;
Detering 2019), modal verbs such as want and should (cf. Brown &
Levinson 1987), and negative particles like no longer or nobody. These
are not merely stylistic devices but serve as tools in constructing
social group identities – as explored in concepts like van Dijk’s
ideological square (1993, 1997), Dryzek’s framework of bonding and
bridging (2010), or Beaver&Stanley’s concept of collective attunements
(2023).
The conference thus invites critical reflection on both the potential
and the ambivalences of invitational communication. How can empathy
and conviction be reconciled? We welcome contributions from rhetoric,
linguistics, communication studies, literary studies, political
science, sociology, and related fields that explore methods of
de-polarization and investigate how language in political and science
communication can be made more inclusive, less polarizing, and
ultimately more invitational. In addition to theoretical and
conceptual reflections, we also welcome empirical case studies,
corpus- and discourse-analytical approaches, experimental studies, and
practical examples.
Possible guiding questions include:
 - Which linguistic and rhetorical strategies, practices, and
techniques have polarizing or de-polarizing effects?
 - What roles do mediality and situationality (e.g. classrooms, social
media, parliaments) as well as specific contexts and communication
formats play in enabling de-polarizing discourse?
 - How can scientific content be communicated effectively in polarized
debates?
 - What are the limits of invitational communication – particularly
when dealing with hate speech, anti-democratic positions, or in
contexts where polarization is actively sought and encouraged?
Relevant topics may include, but are not limited to:
 - Strategies and practices of polarization and de-polarization
 - Polarization as an ideology of inequality
 - Language and extremism
 - Negotiating common ground
 - Invitational rhetoric (S. Foss / C. Griffin) and bridging rhetoric
(J. Dryzek)
 - Counterspeech (e.g. responses to digital hate speech)
For a complete list of references, please visit the conference
website.



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

********************** LINGUIST List Support ***********************
Please consider donating to the Linguist List to support the student editors:

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=87C2AXTVC4PP8

LINGUIST List is supported by the following publishers:

Cascadilla Press http://www.cascadilla.com/

MIT Press http://mitpress.mit.edu/

Multilingual Matters http://www.multilingual-matters.com/


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-36-2124
----------------------------------------------------------