Congreso, coloquio o simposioInfoling 10.41 (2020)
Over the last decades the continuum between communicative immediacy and communicative distance has been a much debated topic in Romance linguistics (Koch & Oesterreicher 1990; Kabatek 2005; López Serena fthc.). Moreover, research on the various discourse traditions along this continuum has led to a more refined description of the anchoring of linguistic subsystems in certain communicative and sociolinguistic contexts. Whereas the bulk of pragmatic-linguistic research has focussed on discourse settings of the communicative immediacy, accounts of the grammar and pragmatics of communicative distance are scarcer. The role of normative models emerging in the communicative distance should not be underestimated, in that they often yield lasting innovations in the linguistic system. Therefore, the proposed thematic panel aims to discuss the grammar and pragmatics of linguistic variants typical of the communicative distance from several perspectives: language change, historical sociolinguistics and scripturalness.
Language change. Recently, research has shown that the poles of communicative immediacy and distance both foster language change. As for the former, linguistic changes have often been addressed in terms of inference-invited semantic change (Traugott & Dasher 2007, Traugott 2018). However, change from distance settings turns out to be common too (Cornillie & Octavio de Toledo 2015; Cornillie 2019; Pons 2020). Several aspects are still unresolved:
- What are the most common models of inspiration for the grammar of distance?
- In the case of new expressions based on prestigious languages (e.g. Latin, French, English), via which discourse traditions do they typically actualize?
- How does a grammar of distance emerge? Which processes of selection and innovation characterize this domain?
Historical sociolinguistics and audience design. Usage patterns may also vary depending on the intended audience of texts (Bell 2001; Octavio de Toledo 2011) and social (a)symmetries between writer and audience lead to the selection of marked variants (cf. Mazzola, Cornillie & Rosemeyer 2019). Yet, the limits of variation within the communicative distance is a matter of discussion. The following issues need to be addressed:
- How can a typology of intended audiences of texts be determined?
- How does the writer-addressee relationship shape style-shifting within the texts of communicative distance?
- What types of morphosyntactic and pragmatic markers are used to signal audience-induced style-shifting?
Scripturalness as language elaboration. The enduring prestige of linguistic forms usually depends on their relation to the written language. Many vernacular expressions that appear both in the immediacy and the distance originated in spoken interaction and shifted to the written communication, acquiring a higher degree of scripturalness. Various questions require further investigation:
- What are the mechanisms behind advanced written language elaboration? Is it due to competition between layering forms?
- What role do canonized writers play in previous stages of a language? Is there a methodologically sound way of measuring their impact on the language of the past?
- Does the reverse process also occur? Do linguistic forms that used to be restricted to the communicative distance shift to the language of immediacy? What can we learn from the (mutual) diachronic exchange between the two poles?
Note that IPrA membership is required for submitting an abstract (with all deadlines in 2020) as well as for presenting during the conference (in 2021), and that membership always runs from 1 January to 31 December, no matter at what time in the year it is applied for.
Barbara Bokus (Warsaw, Poland)
Diana Boxer (Gainesville, USA)
Frank Brisard (Antwerp)
Winnie Cheng (Hong Kong)
Jenny Cook-Gumperz (Santa Barbara, USA)
Anita Fetzer (Würzburg, Germany)
Helmut Gruber (Vienna, Austria)
Yueguo Gu (Beijing, China)
Michael Haugh (Brisbane, Australia)
Janet Holmes (Wellington, New Zealand)
Sachiko Ide (Tokyo, Japan)
Cornelia Ilie (Strömstad, Sweden)
Helga Kotthoff (Freiburg, Germany)
Sophia Marmaridou (Athens, Greece)
Yael Maschler (Haifa, Israel)
Jacob Mey (Odense)
Neal Norrick (Saarbrücken, Germany)
Marina Sbisà (Trieste, Italy)
Jef Verschueren (Antwerp)
Tuija Virtanen (Abo, Finland)
Noah Bubenhofer (UZH University of Zürich)
Andreas Jucker (UZH University of Zürich)
Liana Konstantinidou (ZHAW)
Jacques Moeschler (Université de Genève)
Daniel Perrin (ZHAW)
Andrea Rocci (Università della Svizzera italiana, Lugano)
Felix Steiner (ZHAW)
Patrick Studer (ZHAW)
Larysa Zavgorodnia (ZHAW)
Organizers of the thematic panel: Bert Cornillie (KU Leuven), Giulia Mazzola (KU Leuven), Lola Pons (Universidad de Sevilla), Alvaro Octavio de Toledo y Huerta (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid)
Búsquedas a partir del año 1998: