* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
LINGUIST List logo Eastern Michigan University Wayne State University *
* People & Organizations * Jobs * Calls & Conferences * Publications * Language Resources * Text & Computer Tools * Teaching & Learning * Mailing Lists * Search *
* *
LINGUIST List 18.247

Wed Jan 24 2007

Calls: Ling & Literature/USA; Typology/France

Editor for this issue: Ania Kubisz <anialinguistlist.org>


As a matter of policy, LINGUIST discourages the use of abbreviations or acronyms in conference announcements unless they are explained in the text. To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.html.
Directory
        1.    Claiborne Rice, Division on Linguistic Approaches to Literature
        2.    Melissa Barkat-Defradas, Typology of Modern Arabic Dialects


Message 1: Division on Linguistic Approaches to Literature
Date: 23-Jan-2007
From: Claiborne Rice <cricelouisiana.edu>
Subject: Division on Linguistic Approaches to Literature


Full Title: Division on Linguistic Approaches to Literature

Date: 27-Dec-2007 - 30-Dec-2007
Location: Chicago, USA
Contact Person: Julia Karolle-Berg
Meeting Email: jkarollejcu.edu

Linguistic Field(s): Ling & Literature

Call Deadline: 12-Mar-2007

Meeting Description:

What is Literary Language? Three sessions exploring literature as linguistic
discourse, style, register, speech act, or aspect of standardization. Type of
submission: 300-500-word abstract by 12 March 2007. Send abstract as email
attachment to Julia Karolle-Berg (jkarollejcu.edu) and Claiborne Rice
(cricelouisiana.edu).

Current literary theory has largely decided that there is no such thing as
literary language, but various sub-fields of linguistics, having developed more
sophisticated and sensitive methodologies for categorizing linguistic form and
behavior, might disagree. Depending on one's theoretical outlook, literature
might be seen as a particular discourse, style, register, speech act, or as
playing a role in the socio-political processes of language standardization. We
invite papers that take a nuanced look at literature, or some subcategory of
literature, as language.

One is normally expected to be an MLA member to present, but exceptions are
sometimes made.
Message 2: Typology of Modern Arabic Dialects
Date: 18-Jan-2007
From: Melissa Barkat-Defradas <melissa.barkatuniv-montp3.fr>
Subject: Typology of Modern Arabic Dialects



Full Title: Typology of Modern Arabic Dialects

Date: 14-May-2007 - 15-May-2007
Location: Montpellier, France
Contact Person: Melissa Barkat-Defradas
Meeting Email: melissa.barkatuniv-montp3.fr
Web Site: http://recherche.univ-montp3.fr/praxiling/article.php3?id_article=107

Linguistic Field(s): Typology

Subject Language(s): Andalusian Arabic (qaa)
Arabic, Algerian Saharan Spoken (aao)
Arabic, Algerian Spoken (arq)
Arabic, Babalia Creole (bbz)
Arabic, Baharna Spoken (abv)
Arabic, Shuwa (shu)
Arabic, Cypriot Spoken (acy)
Arabic, Dhofari Spoken (adf)
Arabic, Levantine Bedawi Spoken (avl)
Arabic, Egyptian Spoken (arz)
Arabic, Gulf Spoken (afb)
Arabic, Hadrami Spoken (ayh)
Hassaniyya (mey)
Arabic, Hijazi Spoken (acw)
Arabic, Judeo-Iraqi (yhd)
Arabic, Judeo-Moroccan (aju)
Arabic, Judeo-Tripolitanian (yud)
Arabic, Judeo-Yemeni (jye)
Arabic, Libyan Spoken (ayl)
Arabic, Mesopotamian Spoken (acm)
Arabic, Moroccan Spoken (ary)
Arabic, Najdi Spoken (ars)
Arabic, North Levantine Spoken (apc)
Arabic, North Mesopotamian Spoken (ayp)
Arabic, Omani Spoken (acx)
Arabic, Sa`idi Spoken (aec)
Arabic, Sanaani Spoken (ayn)
Arabic, Shihhi Spoken (ssh)
Arabic, South Levantine Spoken (ajp)
Arabic, Sudanese Creole (pga)
Arabic, Sudanese Spoken (apd)
Arabic, Ta'izzi-Adeni Spoken (acq)
Arabic, Tajiki Spoken (abh)
Arabic, Uzbeki Spoken (auz)
Mozarabic (mxi)

Language Family(ies): Afroasiatic

Call Deadline: 20-Mar-2007

Meeting Description:

The classification which collects the adhesion of the specialists of the domain
consists in classifying all the different Arabic dialects into five principal
groups: (1) dialects of Arabian type (i.e. Saudi Arabia, country of the Gulf,
Yemen); (2) dialects of Levantine type (i.e. Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine);
(3) dialects of Mesopotamian type (i.e. Iraq); (4) dialects of Egyptian type
(i.e. Egypt, Sudan, Chad, Nigeria); (5) dialects of "Maghrebi" type (i.e.
Mauritania, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya). In addition to a certain
geographical coherence, these five dialectal areas were defined on the basis of
some reliable phonological features like (i) the maintenance vs. the loss of the
three interdental fricatives and (ii) the nature of the realization of the
uvular stop (i.e. voiced vs. unvoiced).
These phonological features seem to transcend the regional borders as they also
allow a sociological division of dialects into three categories: (1) dialects of
nomadic Bedouin type, (2) dialects of sedentary Bedouin type; (3) dialects of
urban type.

With the deep social and demographic changes the Arabic countries have
known in the course the 20th century, many important urban centres
mushroomed. These are undoubtedly important places for language contacts.
What linguistic impacts these centres have had - and still have - on the
nature of Arabic koines? What is the present value of the phonological
features that previously enabled the geographical and sociological
classification? What is their role in the processes of linguistic
accommodation and dialectal levelling? Does the centrifugal force of the
sedentary urban centres reach the surrounding sedentary rural areas? Does
the language of urban sedentary type used and conveyed by the media exert
any influence on Bedouin nomadic linguistic varieties? If such an influence
is conceivable, any classification based on the phonological units quoted
above becomes extremely delicate, even inoperable since the same linguistic
object could be interpreted as typical of sedentary Bedouin dialects by the
ones, or as specifically nomadic by the others and eventually, as the
product of the integration (conscious or unconscious) of a prestigious
feature at a local, regional, national or cross national level? Did the
ancient Arabic dialects that were not worth studying by traditional
philologists simply cease to exist after the establishment of the
linguistic norm? Was their use reduced to local minorities and specific
situations of communication or did these vernacular forms evolve to become
the modern dialects that are spoken nowadays? We attribute particular
thanks to the process of koinization which develops itself in the great
urban centres, to the resurgence of linguistic features with strong
diachronic value that are interpreted - sometimes wrongly - like the
results of linguistic accommodation and/or levelling. These features - though
they entirely belong to the subjects' competence - deeply modify
the structural organization of the regional linguistic systems. What is our
knowledge about the systems of these dialects? What methodological tools
can the researchers use to distinguish between what should be considered as
a linguistic fossil from what is a recent element of urban koinization? How
should old and new features be arranged in any work of classification?
Finally, a set of new classification features will be proposed at the
segmental (i.e. consonants, vowels, diphthongs), and the prosodic levels
(i.e. stress, rate, rhythm, intonation). These new elements will be
explored in isolation or in relation with other linguistic domains
(morphology, lexicology, syntax).

All these questions will be tackled by specialists of the domain, during the
International Conference on "Typology of Modern Arabic Dialects: features,
methods and models of classification" on May 14-15, 2007.





Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue




Please report any bad links or misclassified data

LINGUIST Homepage | Read LINGUIST | Contact us

NSF Logo

While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed
on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.