* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
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 21.3889

Mon Oct 04 2010

Calls: Phonetics/Psycholinguistics/Sociolinguistics/Linguistics (Jrnl)

Editor for this issue: Justin Petro <justinlinguistlist.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!
Directory
        1.    Anja Schüppert, Linguistics

Message 1: Linguistics
Date: 04-Oct-2010
From: Anja Schüppert <a.schueppertrug.nl>
Subject: Linguistics
E-mail this message to a friend

Full Title: Linguistics


Linguistic Field(s): Phonetics; Psycholinguistics; Sociolinguistics

Call Deadline: 15-Nov-2010

Experimental Approaches to Mutual Intelligibility of Closely Related
Languages
Guest Editors: Charlotte Gooskens, Nanna Haug Hilton, Anja Schüppert

Communication across language borders mostly takes place in lingua
francas. In some regions, however, it is more likely that people will
communicate with each other using their native languages. Speakers
communicating this way are receptively bilingual, meaning that they can
understand closely related languages without being able to speak them
actively. Some well-documented language areas in Europe where receptive
multilingualism has been documented include Scandinavia, the Iberian
Peninsula, Finland/Estonia, Slovakia/Czech Republic and the Benelux.
Outside Europe, among others, mutual intelligibility between Afrikaans and
Dutch, Hindi and Urdu and Kalabari and Nembe (Nigeria) have been
investigated and numerous other cases of receptive multilingualism are
known.
Linguistic as well as non-linguistic factors determine the success and the
fluency of mutual intelligibility. Speakers of languages with a large phonetic
distance, for example, frequently encounter more problems when
communicating in their native languages than speakers whose native
languages are phonetically closer. Furthermore, prosodic, syntactic, and
lexical differences have an impact on the degree of receptive multilingualism
of the listeners. Non-linguistic factors that may play a role are attitudes
towards the neighbouring language or culture, or the amount of contact. The
existence of negative attitudes or social stigmas attached to languages is
often seen as a potential obstruction for successful intergroup communication
while previous contact with a language enhances the chance of successful
communication.
For some language pairs, consistent asymmetries in mutual intelligibility have
been reported. These asymmetries have often been explained by means of
non-linguistic determinants. However, there is evidence that also linguistic
factors may cause asymmetrical intelligibility.

We invite papers for a special issue in Linguistics employing experimental
methods to investigate receptive multilingualism from all language families.
Topics include, but are not limited to, the following topics:
- linguistic determinants of mutual intelligibility (such as prosodic,
phonetic, morpho-syntactic and lexical features)
- non-linguistic determinants of mutual intelligibility (such as language
attitudes and language contact)
- asymmetries in mutual intelligibility
- new methods for measuring intelligibility

Abstracts should be approximately 700 words and may be submitted by 15
November 2010 to a.schueppertrug.nl.


Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue



Page Updated: 04-Oct-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.