* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
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 19.2555

Wed Aug 20 2008

Calls: General Ling/Germany; Pragmatics,Socioling/Australia

Editor for this issue: F. Okki Kurniawan <okkilinguistlist.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.    Barbara Stiebels, DGfS-Workshop 'Linking of Sentential Arguments'
        2.    Michael Haugh, Im/politeness across Englishes


Message 1: DGfS-Workshop 'Linking of Sentential Arguments'
Date: 19-Aug-2008
From: Barbara Stiebels <stiebelszas.gwz-berlin.de>
Subject: DGfS-Workshop 'Linking of Sentential Arguments'
E-mail this message to a friend

Full Title: DGfS-Workshop 'Linking of Sentential Arguments'

Date: 04-Mar-2009 - 06-Mar-2009
Location: University of Osnabrück, Germany
Contact Person: Tonjes Veenstra
Meeting Email: dgfs.2009_ag12zas.gwz-berlin.de

Linguistic Field(s): General Linguistics

Call Deadline: 31-Aug-2008

Meeting Description:

This workshop is part of the annual conference of the German Linguistics Society
(DGfS) at the University of Osnabrück
(http://www.blogs.uni-osnabrueck.de/dgfs2009-de/arbeitsgruppen/). This workshop
will deal with the linking of sentential arguments and the role of diathetic
operations in the introduction or elimination of sentential arguments.

Second call for papers 'Linking of Sentential Arguments' (session of the DGfS
annual meeting, Osnabrück, March 4-6, 2009)

Extended deadline for abstract submission: August 31, 2008.

This workshop will deal with the linking of sentential arguments and the role of
diathetic operations in the introduction or elimination of sentential arguments.

For details: http://linguistlist.org/callconf/browse-conf-action.cfm?confid=71162

Please submit your abstract as pdf file ('surname_dgfs2009_ag12.pdf').

Organizers:
Barbara Stiebels (ZAS Berlin)
Tonjes Veenstra (ZAS Berlin)
Message 2: Im/politeness across Englishes
Date: 18-Aug-2008
From: Michael Haugh <m.haughgriffith.edu.au>
Subject: Im/politeness across Englishes
E-mail this message to a friend


Full Title: Im/politeness across Englishes

Date: 12-Jul-2009 - 17-Jul-2009
Location: Melbourne, VIC, Australia
Contact Person: Michael Haugh
Meeting Email: m.haughgriffith.edu.au

Linguistic Field(s): Pragmatics; Sociolinguistics

Subject Language(s): English (eng)

Call Deadline: 15-Sep-2008

Meeting Description:

This panel aims to explore sociopragmatic variation in im/politeness across
Englishes.

Call for Papers

It is frequently acknowledged and fundamentally accepted that while there is
indeed a common thread of mutual intelligibility throughout the many existing
varieties of English throughout the world today, differences do also exist
between such varieties (hence, indeed, the very term 'varieties'). These
differences are usually characterised by both professional and lay observers of
the English language(s) sociolinguistically, that is, the differences are
characterized primarily in terms of variation perceived and identified in
accents, syntactic structures and lexical choices. Recent calls for more
attention to be paid to differences in pragmatics across varieties of English,
however, whilst muted, have been heard within the emerging, nascent fields of
variational pragmatics (Barron 2005; Barron and Schneider 2005; Schneider and
Barron 2008) and ethnopragmatics (Goddard 2006).

In early work on politeness, Brown and Levinson (1987) attempted to capture
differences between Standard American English and Standard British English (in
addition to other languages) through their distinction between positive and
negative politeness. However, the explanatory power of this binary distinction
decreases when one considers other varieties of English across and within their
'host' cultures, and the kinds of im/politeness that can arise within them. For
instance, how is im/politeness understood and communicated within other
varieties of English, for example, Australian English, New Zealand English,
Canadian English, Irish English, Singaporean English, Indian English, South
African English, Scottish English, Welsh English and so on? The picture becomes
increasingly complex when one starts to consider possible regional differences
in im/politeness (Northern Irish English vs. Eire English; Northern and Southern
English dialects in the UK), and also how im/politeness may vary across the
various ''social strata'' within each variety. In emphasizing universality,
then, Brown and Levinson's theory of politeness, whilst an invaluable and
insightful 'way in', has not allowed sufficient space for researchers to explore
variation in im/politeness across Englishes.

Recent developments in im/politeness research over the past decade, however,
have opened up new possibilities for investigating such questions. First, there
has an important move to studying not only politeness, but also impoliteness
(Bousfield 2008; Bousfield and Locher 2008; Culpeper 1996, 2005; Eelen 2001,
amongst others). Second, there has been a shift to theorizing im/politeness as
evaluations of self (group)/other (group), which draw from expectations about
(in)appropriate behaviour ''shared'' across speakers (Eelen 2001; Haugh and
Hinze 2003; Mills 2003; Spencer-Oatey 2005; Watts 2003). Third, there has been a
shift to studying im/politeness (evaluations) as they emerge in (different types
of) interaction (Arundale 2006; Bousfield 2008; Haugh 2007; Locher and Watts
2005). Finally, im/politeness research has increasingly drawn from larger
corpora of interactions, opening up the possibility for generalizations across
speakers and situations to be made with greater confidence (Holmes and Schnurr
2005; Terkourafi 2005; Usami 2006). In light of these emerging trends in
im/politeness research, we believe the groundwork has been laid for researchers
with a particular interest in English to explore sociopragmatic variation in
im/politeness across Englishes. While this panel is not intended to be
restricted to any single theoretical or methodological approach, contributions
will only be accepted that (1) attend to one or more the trends in im/politeness
research identified above, and (2) draw from interactional and/or corpus data.

If you are interested in contributing a paper to this panel please send a 600
word abstract to Michael Haugh (m.haughgriffith.edu.au) and Derek Bousfield
(DEBousfielduclan.ac.uk) by 15th September 2008.

Panel organisers:
Michael Haugh (Griffith University) and Derek Bousfield (University of Central
Lancashire)

References
Arundale, Robert. 2006. Face as relational and interactional: a communication
framework for research on face, facework, and politeness. Journal of Politeness
Research 2: 193-216.
Barron, Anne. 2005. Variational pragmatics in the foreign language classroom.
System 33: 519-536.
Barron, Anne, and Schneider, Klaus. 2005. The Pragmatics of Irish English.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bousfield, Derek. 2008. Impoliteness in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bousfied, Derek and Locher, Miriam. 2008. Impoliteness in Language. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Brown, Penelope, and Levinson, Stephen. 1987. Politeness. Some Universals in
Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Culpeper, Jonathan. 1996. Towards and anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of
Pragmatics 25: 349-367.
Culpeper, Jonathan. 2005. Impoliteness and entertainment in the television quiz
show: the weakest link. Journal of Politeness Research 1: 35-72.
Eelen, Gino. 2001. A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Goddard, Cliff. (ed.) 2006. Ethnopragmatics. Understanding Discourse in Cultural
Context. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Haugh, Michael. 2007. The discursive challenge to politeness theory: an
interactional alternative. Journal of Politeness Research 3: 295-317.
Haugh, Michael, and Hinze, Carl. 2003. A metalinguistic approach to
deconstructing the concepts of 'face' and 'politeness' in Chinese, English and
Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 35: 1581-1611.
Holmes, Janet, and Schnurr, Stephanie. 2005. Politeness, humour and gender in
the workplace: negotiating norms and identifying contestation. Journal of
Politeness Research 1: 121-149.
Locher, Miriam, and Watts, Richard. 2005. Politeness theory and relational work.
Journal of Politeness Research 1: 9-34.
Mills, Sara. 2003. Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schneider, Klaus, and Barron, Anne. 2008. Variational Pragmatics. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2005. (Im)politeness, face and perceptions of rapport:
unpackaging their bases and interrelationships. Journal of Politeness Research
1: 95-120.
Terkourafi, Marina. 2005. Beyond the micro-level in politeness research. Journal
of Politeness Research 1: 237-262.
Usami, Mayumi. 2006. Discourse politeness theory and cross-cultural pragmatics.
In Asako Yoshitomi, Tae Umino and Masashi Negishi (eds.), Readings in Second
Language Pedagogy and Second Language Acquisition. In Japanese Context,
pp.19-41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Watts, Richard. 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

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.