Annonces

back

Thematic orientation.

We have chosen three themes that are potentially important for the development of general reflection. Clearly, they do not exhaust the subject, but it seems to us that trying to deepen our understanding in these areas is a useful task at the present juncture.

For each theme, we have indicated below some ideas for making more precise the main lines to be followed and for suggesting the direction expected from proposed presentations:

I. “‘Contact’: an ‘obvious fact ? A notion to be rethought?»

The aim is to open theoretical reflection on the importance of ‘contact’ as a linguistic and anthropological phenomenon for the study of the evolution and dynamics of languages and of Language.

Sub-themes:

The “creole” debate and its broader context.
The “mixed language” debate and its broader context.
The “contact-induced change” debate and its broader context.

Three empirically documented and “ideologically” founded debates.

These have their own vitality as “debates” but equally, they allow one to illustrate and to question fundamental points regarding our understanding of the evolution of language and of the dynamics of languages: structural homogeneity and heterogeneity of languages (cf. metatypy, convergence and emergence of new languages), interpretation of phenomena as processes of construction of contextually determined forms, construction of norms, selection of reference points, stabilization or variation of linguistic forms, realization of processes of semiotization and retention of historicity in the dynamics of the transformation of languages, etc.

II. “Contact, typology and evolution of languages: a perspective to be explored”

Here the aim is to open discussion on what is constructed by ‘typology’.

Sub-themes:

Results of language contact seen from a broad comparative perspective;

linguistic areas at a local, continental and a global scale;
different "diffusibility" or "areal stability" of different linguistic features;
the role of a language's structural type in facilitating or rejecting structural influence;
the relation between grammatical and lexical borrowing;
cross-linguistic comparability of language contact as a basis for typological language-contact databases;
the possibility of quantifying contact influence, both within a language and in a large language sample.

III. “Representation of the phenomena and the role of descriptors: a perspective to be established”

In connection with the double requirement of theoretical reflection and empirical underpinning, the aim is to develop an epistemological reflection on the elaboration of knowledge in the domain of languages and Language.

What are the relations among the social-anthropological, cognitive, evolutionary, and structural strands in the debate?

Models, metaphors, representations and attempts at (re)conceptualization.

Role of metaphor in the construction of representations.

Role of phenomena in description and in processes of analysis.

Reference to “‘explanatory’ paradigms”: evolutionary, complex, ecological, structuralist, essentialist, cognitivist, ...

Relevant questions:

Do we need to rethink contact?
Is it is appropriate (or interesting) to consider contact as an “obvious fact” and/or as a “need” in the elaboration of linguistics?

We have chosen three themes that are potentially important for the development of general reflection. Clearly, they do not exhaust the subject, but it seems to us that trying to deepen our understanding in these areas is a useful task at the present juncture.

For each theme, we have indicated below some ideas for making more precise the main lines to be followed and for suggesting the direction expected from proposed presentations:

I. “‘Contact’: an ‘obvious fact ? A notion to be rethought?»

The aim is to open theoretical reflection on the importance of ‘contact’ as a linguistic and anthropological phenomenon for the study of the evolution and dynamics of languages and of Language.

Sub-themes:

The “creole” debate and its broader context.

The “mixed language” debate and its broader context.

The “contact-induced change” debate and its broader context.

Three empirically documented and “ideologically” founded debates.

II. “Contact, typology and evolution of languages: a perspective to be explored”

Here the aim is to open discussion on what is constructed by ‘typology’.

Sub-themes:

Results of language contact seen from a broad comparative perspective;

different "diffusibility" or "areal stability" of different linguistic features;

the role of a language's structural type in facilitating or rejecting structural influence;

the relation between grammatical and lexical borrowing;

cross-linguistic comparability of language contact as a basis for typological language-contact databases;

the possibility of quantifying contact influence, both within a language and in a large language sample.

III. “Representation of the phenomena and the role of descriptors: a perspective to be established”

In connection with the double requirement of theoretical reflection and empirical underpinning, the aim is to develop an epistemological reflection on the elaboration of knowledge in the domain of languages and Language.

What are the relations among the social-anthropological, cognitive, evolutionary, and structural strands in the debate?

Models, metaphors, representations and attempts at (re)conceptualization.

Role of metaphor in the construction of representations.

Role of phenomena in description and in processes of analysis.

Reference to “‘explanatory’ paradigms”: evolutionary, complex, ecological, structuralist, essentialist, cognitivist, ...

Relevant questions:

Do we need to rethink contact?

Is it is appropriate (or interesting) to consider contact as an “obvious fact” and/or as a “need” in the elaboration of linguistics?