* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
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 23.3173

Tue Jul 24 2012

Calls: Pragmatics, Discourse Analysis, Semantics, Typology, Historical Ling/India

Editor for this issue: Alison Zaharee <alisonlinguistlist.org>

Date: 24-Jul-2012
From: Liesbeth Degand <liesbeth.deganduclouvain.be>
Subject: Pragmatic Role of Elements at Right Periphery
E-mail this message to a friend

Full Title: Pragmatic Role of Elements at Right Periphery

Date: 08-Sep-2013 - 13-Sep-2013
Location: New Delhi, India
Contact Person: Liesbeth Degand
Meeting Email: < click here to access email >

Linguistic Field(s): Discourse Analysis; Historical Linguistics; Pragmatics; Semantics; Typology

Call Deadline: 15-Oct-2012

Meeting Description:

Conveners:

Liesbeth Degand (University of Louvain at Louvain-la-Neuve)
Elizabeth Closs Traugott (Stanford University)

In recent years attention has begun to be paid to 'right periphery' (RP) phenomena, as two threads of inquiry have developed: study of discourse structure, especially its pragmatics (starting with Schiffrin 1987), and syntactic cartography (starting with Cinque 1999). Compared to left periphery (LP) phenomena, right periphery phenomena have received little attention (but see Van der Wouden and Foolen 2011).

The aim of the panel is to build on and test proposals that LP and RP have different functions (Beeching and Detges In preparation), especially the proposal that the role of RP is to mark turn-yielding and that it is likely to be intersubjective and dialogic in the sense that the speaker positions their utterance against anticipated contributions of other speakers. This raises the question of what type of linguistic expressions and/or constructions may occur in right peripheral position.

The focus of the panel will be the following set of questions:

a) How can RP be defined? How should distinctions be made between elements within argument structure (e.g. question-markers at RP, right dislocations) and those 'outside' it and often disjunct (e.g. pragmatic markers, comment clauses, tags)?
b) What sorts of functions are expressed at RP? Van der Wouden and Foolen (2011) find modal, focus, some connective particles, and repairs at RP in Dutch. Is this set language-specific or cross-linguistically robust for elements at RP?
c) Are any functions not expressable at LP (tags in English, Dutch hoor 'hear'(warning or reassuring), French punctuating quoi 'what')? Are any LP functions not expressable at RP? What does this suggest about functions at LP and RP?
d) What generalizations can be made about how elements at RP arise historically? Does use of an expression at RP always entail subjectification (as defined in Traugott 2010)?

References:

Beeching, Kate and Ulrich Detges, eds. In preparation. Papers from IPra 12, Cinque, Giulielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Oxford: OUP.

Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: CUP

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2010. Revisiting subjectification and intersubjectification. In Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte & Hubert Cuyckens, eds., Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization, 29-70. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

Van der Wouden, Ton and Ad Foolen. 2011. Dutch particles in the right periphery. http://www.tonvanderwouden.nl/index_files/papers/fipa-2011-05b.pdf

Call for Papers:

We welcome abstracts that address the questions posed for the panel from a range of theoretical perspectives, based on spoken and written data. We are particularly interested in receiving abstracts that provide evidence from languages of the Middle East and from the Indian and African contents, in addition to the East Asian and European languages that have been the focus of much recent research in pragmatics. Abstracts should be about 500 words long plus data examples and references. They should specify which of the questions a) - d) will be addressed, what type of theoretical perspective will be adopted (e.g. discourse analytic, cartographical), and what kinds of data will be used (e.g., conversational (spoken), represented conversation (written), synchronic, diachronic).

Consistent with IPra requirements, abstracts should be sent to both panel organizers (Liesbeth.Deganduclouvain.be, traugottstanford.edu) by October 15, 2012. If accepted by the conveners, they will need to be submitted online individually by November 1, 2012: 'Though it is the panel organizer(s) who take(s) active responsibility for the quality of the contributions to their panel (i.e. they decide what is accepted), abstracts should, for all panel contributions, be submitted by the individual contributors separately by the 1 November 2012 deadline that will be handled for individual submissions (see below)' (http://ipra.ua.ac.be/main.aspx?c=.CONFERENCE13&n=1443). Presenters of papers at IPra 13 must be members of IPra.



Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue



Page Updated: 24-Jul-2012

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.