* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
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 21.3655

Thu Sep 16 2010

Calls: Disc Analysis, Pragmatics, Socioling/United Kingdom

Editor for this issue: Di Wdzenczny <dilinguistlist.org>

LINGUIST is pleased to announce the launch of an exciting new feature: Easy Abstracts! Easy Abs is a free abstract submission and review facility designed to help conference organizers and reviewers accept and process abstracts online. Just go to: http://www.linguistlist.org/confcustom, and begin your conference customization process today! With Easy Abstracts, submission and review will be as easy as 1-2-3!
        1.    Barbara De Cock, Non-Prototypical Uses of Personal Pronouns

Message 1: Non-Prototypical Uses of Personal Pronouns
Date: 16-Sep-2010
From: Barbara De Cock <barbara.decockarts.kuleuven.be>
Subject: Non-Prototypical Uses of Personal Pronouns
E-mail this message to a friend

Full Title: Non-Prototypical Uses of Personal Pronouns

Date: 03-Jul-2011 - 08-Jul-2011
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Contact Person: Barbara De Cock
Meeting Email: barbara.de.cockgmail.com

Linguistic Field(s): Discourse Analysis; Pragmatics; Sociolinguistics

Call Deadline: 10-Oct-2011

Meeting Description:

Personal pronouns normally refer to agents, experiencers, cognizers or
patients of certain actions, beliefs, states etc. Their interpretation is
established in context. It has been argued by Bühler (1934) and Benveniste
(1966), among others, that the 1st person singular refers to the speaker,
while the 2nd person singular denotes the hearer to whom the utterance is
directed. In addition to pragmatic and cognitive approaches, also typological
(Cysouw 2003, Helmbrecht 1999, Siewierska 2004) and formal semantics
research (Wechsler 2010, establishing a connection with a general Theory
of Mind) has looked into these issues.
Already Bühler, however, hints at uses that do not have a purely deictic
reading in his concept of Deixis am Phantasma. Mostly due to corpus-based
studies, there has been an upsurge of interest in these non-prototypical
uses of deictic pronouns (or corresponding verb inflections). Non-canonical
uses such as generic readings of the 1st and 2nd person singular and the
'condescending' 'we' used by nurses and doctors (have we taken our
medicine?' cf. Quirk et al. 1985, Brown/Levinson 1987) have been
documented. Interestingly, misunderstandings of reference seem to be very
rare and/or are resolved interactively during conversation. These
phenomena have been claimed to be widespread - possibly universal -
(Siewierska 2004, Kitagawa/Lehrer 1990), yet language-specific properties
have been analysed as well (e.g. Laberge 1977 for Canadian French,
Bolinger 1979 and Hyman 2004 for English, Biq 1991 for Mandarin, Stewart
1992 for French and Spanish).

Still lacking, however, is a connection of these - often isolated - empirical
findings to general pronominal theory. This is partially hindered by a lack of
truly cross-linguistic studies beyond the rather well-researched
Indoeuropean languages, as well as by terminological differences according
to linguistic traditions, mainly with respect to the concepts of 'generic' and
'impersonal'. It is therefore our aim to look into these phenomena in different
languages and from different theoretical approaches to pronominal theory,
in order to present and discuss recent findings. By consequence, all data-
based research on non-prototypical uses of person deixis is welcome.

Discussion may include:
- differences between singular and plural personal pronouns as to their
non-prototypical readings;
- disambiguation strategies of interactants and interactive treatment of
- alternation with other strategies, such as indefinite pronouns, impersonal
constructions, other person reference forms;
- alternation of T/V pronouns and inflected verb forms used as forms of
address and as a generalization strategy;
- the impact of TAM and other purported 'shifters of reference';
- sociolinguistic and sociostylistic variation;
- acquisition of these non-prototypical uses;
- crosslinguistic perspectives, including sign languages;
- theoretical explanations of these phenomena, and, conversely,
implications of these phenomena for the analysis of deictic forms in general.

(Due to character restrictions, this is a short version of the call. If you wish
a more complete version of the call, including a reference list,
please contact the session organizers.)

Call For Papers

In order to maximally enhance crosslinguistic and crosstheoretical reflection,
a slot of three 20-minute presentations will be concluded with a 30 minute
joint discussions slot, bringing together the presented theoretical
perspectives and findings from different languages.

Call deadlines:

Oct. 10th, 2010: send a 500 word abstract of your paper to
Bettina.klugeuni-bielefeld.de and barbara.de.cockgmail.com

Specify the data you use, theoretical framework(s), main hypothesis and
(expected) results.

Oct.15th, 2010: notification of acceptance/rejection in the panel. Selection
will be made according to the link of the proposal with the panel proposal
and aims at proposing a diverse range of languages/theories. Therefore,
data-based papers contrasting languages/theories are welcomed as well.
Non-acceptance in this panel does not imply that your paper will not be
accepted for the general IPrA session.

Oct. 29th, 2010: (accepted) authors must have submitted their abstracts on
the IPrA-website http://ipra.ua.ac.be/. To do so, you must be an IPrA
member (registration via the website).
Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue

Page Updated: 16-Sep-2010

Supported in part by the National Science Foundation       About LINGUIST    |   Contact Us       ILIT 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.