LINGUIST List 19.2644
|
Fri Aug 29 2008
Calls: Pragmatics/Australia; Cog Sci,Comp Ling,Semantics/USA
Editor for this issue: F. Okki Kurniawan
<okki linguistlist.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. Etsuko
Oishi,
Context and Contexts: parts meet whole?
2. Miriam R L
Petruck,
Frame Semantics Theme Session ICLC-11
Message 1: Context and Contexts: parts meet whole?
|
Date: 28-Aug-2008
From: Etsuko Oishi <etsukofujijoshi.ac.jp>
Subject: Context and Contexts: parts meet whole?
 E-mail this message to a friend
Full Title: Context and Contexts: parts meet whole?
Date: 12-Jul-2009 - 17-Jul-2009
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact Person: Anita Fetzer
Meeting Email: fetzeruni-lueneburg.de
Web Site: http://ipra.ua.ac.be/
Linguistic Field(s): Pragmatics
Call Deadline: 15-Sep-2008
Meeting Description:
'Context and Contexts: parts meet whole?' is the theme of the panel organized at
the 11th International Pragmatics Conference (IPrA). The goal of this panel is
to examine the complexity of context and its multifaceted and multilayered
nature, tackling one (or more) of the issues of indexicality, intentionality,
and micro/meso/macro context.
Call for Papers
Context and Contexts: parts meet whole?
A panel organized at the 11th International Pragmatics Conference of the
International Pragmatics Association (IPrA)
July 12-17, 2009, in Australia (Melbourne)
More general information about the conference can be accessed via:
http://ipra.ua.ac.be/
The concept of context has undergone some fundamental rethinking in the
scientific community, where it is no longer seen as an analytic prime. Rather
than being looked upon as an external constraint on linguistic performance,
context tends to be analysed as a product of language use, as interactionally
constructed and as negotiated. This is due to the fact that communication is
both context-creating and context-dependent (Bateson 1972) and that in
communication context is imported and invocated (Levinson 2003).
Context has been conceptualized with respect to the dichotomies of figure versus
ground, and given-and-there versus re-constructed, it has been assigned the
status of a dynamic construct, and it has been looked upon as never saturated
(Goodwin and Duranti 1992). Furthermore, it has been assigned the status of a
relational construct (Fetzer and Akman 2002) relating communicative acts and
their surroundings, relating communicative acts, relating individual actors and
their surroundings, and relating the set of individual actors and their
communicative acts to their surroundings. It has been further refined by the
differentiation between social context, sociocultural context, linguistic
context (or co-text) and cognitive context, and between micro, meso and macro
contexts (Fetzer 2004).
Degrees of connectedness between context and communicative acts are subject to
debate. Such connectedness might be taken minimally as the one between
indexicals and the context, or as pragmatic ''situatedness'' of communicative
acts in context (Bach 1994, Cappelen and Lepore 2005, Kaplan 1989, Mey 2001,
Recanati 2004).
The goal of this panel is to examine the complexity of context and its
multifaceted and multilayered nature, tackling one (or more) of the following
aspects:
- the connectedness between the indexicality of social action and context(s)
- the connectedness between intentionality of communicative action and context(s)
- the connectedness between micro contexts and their embedding contexts (for
instance, linguistic constructions seen as a constitutive part of utterances;
locutionary and illocutionary acts seen as constitutive parts of speech acts; or
meta-representations; or illocutionary-force-indicating devices,
contextualization cues or other types of connectives)
- the connectedness between meso contexts and their embedding contexts (for
instance, genre, speech event, activity type, frame or communicative project)
- the connectedness between macro context (for instance, culture, institution
and society) and their embedded meso / micro contexts
References:
Bach, Kent (1994): Conversational implicature. Mind and Language 9, 124-162.
Bateson, Gregory (1972): Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Chandler
Publishing Company.
Cappelen, Herman and Lepore, Ernie (2005): Insensitive Semantics. Malden, MA:
Blackwell.
Fetzer, Anita and Akman, Varol (2002): Contexts of social action: guest editors'
introduction. Language and Communication 22(4): 391-402.
Fetzer, Anita (2004): Recontextualizing context: grammaticality meets
appropriateness. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Goodwin, Charles and Duranti, Alessandro (1992): Rethinking context: an
introduction. In A. Duranti and C. Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking Context. Language
as an Interactive Phenomenon, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1-42.
Kaplan, David (1989): Demonstratives. In J. Almog, J. Perry, and H. Wettstein
(eds.), Themes from Kaplan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 481-563.
Levinson, Stephen C. (2003): Contextualizing 'contextualization cues'. In:
Eerdmans, Susan, Prevignano, Carlo and Thibault, Paul (eds.), Language and
interaction. Discussions with John J. Gumperz. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 31-40.
Mey, Jacob L (2001): Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Recanati, François (2004): Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Please send your abstract (500 words) by the 15th September 2008 to both organisers:
Notification of acceptance 30th September 2008
Anita Fetzer
Leuphana University Lueneburg
Institute of English Studies
D-21335 Lueneburg
tel: +49-(0)4131-677-2662
fax: +49-(0)4131-677-2666
email: fetzeruni-lueneburg.de
Etsuko Oishi
Fuji Women's University
Kita 16 Nishi 2, Kita-ku,
Sapporo 001-0016, Japan
tel: +81 01 736 5395
fax: +81 01 709 8541
e-mail: etsukofujijoshi.ac.jp
Message 2: Frame Semantics Theme Session ICLC-11
|
Date: 28-Aug-2008
From: Miriam R L Petruck <miriampicsi.berkeley.edu>
Subject: International Cognitive Linguistics Conference
E-mail this message to a friend
Full Title: Frame Semantics Theme Session ICLC-11
Short Title: ICLC 11 Theme Session
Date: 28-Jul-2009 - 03-Aug-2009
Location: Berkeley, CA, USA
Contact Person: Miriam R L Petruck
Meeting Email: miriampicsi.berkeley.edu
Linguistic Field(s): Cognitive Science; Computational Linguistics; Linguistic
Theories; Semantics; Text/Corpus Linguistics
Call Deadline: 10-Oct-2008
Meeting Description:
Frame Semantics Theme Session ICLC-11
Advances in Frame Semantics: Corpus and Computational Approaches and Insights
Call for Papers
Deadline extended to October 10, 2008
Advances in Frame Semantics: Corpus and Computational Approaches and Insights
Theme Session to be held at ICLC 11, Berkeley, CA
Date: July 28 - August 3, 2009
Organizer: Miriam R. L. Petruck
Theme Session Description:
Fillmore (1975) introduced the notion of a frame into linguistics over thirty
years ago. As a cognitive structuring device used in the service of
understanding, the semantic frame, parts of which are indexed by words (Fillmore
1985), is at the heart of Frame Semantics. While researchers have appealed to
Frame Semantics to provide accounts for various lexical, syntactic, and semantic
phenomena in a range of languages (e.g. Ostman 2000, Petruck 1995, Lambrecht
1984), its most highly developed instantiation is found in FrameNet
(http://framenet.icsi.berkeley.edu). An ongoing research project in
computational lexicography, the FrameNet database provides for a substantial
portion of the vocabulary of contemporary English, a body of semantically and
syntactically annotated sentences from which reliable information can be
reported on the valences or combinatorial possibilities of each lexical item.
FrameNet has generated great interest in the Natural Language Processing
community, resulting in new efforts for lexicon building and computational
semantics. Advances in technology and the availability of large corpora have
facilitated developing FrameNet lexical resources for languages other than
English (with Spanish, Japanese, and German the most advanced, and Hebrew,
Italian, Slovenian and Swedish at early stages). These projects (necessarily)
also test FrameNet's implicit claim about representing conceptual structure,
rather than building an application driven structured organization of the
lexicon of contemporary English. At the same time, FrameNet has inspired
research on automatically induced semantic lexicons (Green and Dorr 2004, Pado
and Lapata 2005) and automatic semantic role labeling (ASRL), or ''semantic
parsing'' (Gildea and Jurafsky 2002, Thompson et al. 2003, Fleischman and Hovy
2003, Litkowski 2004, Baldewein et al. 2004). Frame Semantics has proven to be
among the most useful techniques for deep semantic analysis of texts, thus
contributing to research on information extraction (Mohit and Narayanan 2003),
question answering (Narayanan and Harabagiu 2004, Narayanan and Sinha 2005), and
automatic reasoning (Scheffczyk et al. 2006, Scheffczyk et al., 2007).
In 1999 (at ICLC 6 in Stockholm), researchers began to address cognitive aspects
of Frame Semantics explicitly in a public forum during a theme session on
Construction Grammar, the sister theory of Frame Semantics. The goal of the
2009 theme session is to bring together researchers in cognitive, corpus and
computational linguistics to (1) present their work using corpus approaches for
the development of FrameNet-style lexical resources and FrameNet-derived
representations for computational approaches to semantic processing and (2)
share their insights about advances in Frame Semantics. We are particularly
interested in work that attends to the cognitive dimension in Frame Semantics.
Submission Procedure:
Abstracts must be
- a maximum of 500 words
- submitted in .pdf format
- received no later than the Oct 10, 2008 deadline
- sent with the title of the paper, name(s) of author(s), affiliation and a
contact e-mail address
- sent to miriampicsi.berkeley.edu
Important: Both the theme session proposal and the individual contributions will
undergo independent reviewing by the ICLC program committee.
Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
|
|
Please report any bad links or misclassified data
LINGUIST Homepage | Read
LINGUIST | Contact us
While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed
on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.
|
|
