Call for papers open now!
Call for papers open now!
Taal In de ontwikkeling van het Nederlands zijn economisch en cultureel dominante steden niet altijd ook linguïstisch dominant.
On 18 January 2022 (9am – 12pm CET), the Historical Sociolinguistics Research Program (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) is organizing an expert workshop on dialect contact.
|9:00 – 9:10||Introduction and welcome|
|9:10 – 9:35||Joshua Brown (Australian National University)
Dialect contact, standardization, authority
|9:35 – 10:00||Randi Neteland (Universitetet i Bergen)
Dialect contact: the role of the broader social context
|10:00 – 10:25||David Britain (Universität Bern)
Looking for calm within the storm – dialect contact research and its elephants in the room
|10:25 – 10:45||Break|
|10:45 – 11:05||Project presentation:
Dialect contact and standardization in 16th-century Antwerp
|11:05 – 11:35||Responses by invited experts (10 min. each)|
|11:35 – 12:00||General discussion and conclusions|
The workshop will take place online. Send an email to Julie (dot) Van (dot) Ongeval (at) vub (dot) be to receive the link if you wish to attend.
This brief talk will consider some methodological questions researchers face when dealing with questions of dialect contact, standardization, and authority in the past. Social events during the early modern period, such as mass emigration, constant war, increased trade, and rapid urbanization, are characteristic of many locations across Europe. In Italy, these phenomena brought speakers of different ‘dialects’ into contact at the same time as a standard was evolving. A parallel development saw the rise of linguistic academies endowed with particular authority to make linguistic pronouncements, in an (often futile) attempt at inducing what was believed to be appropriate linguistic behaviour. How is one best placed to deal with dialect contact, standardization, and authority, when these terms are often ambiguous in the research literature, in different linguistic traditions, and across varied European contexts?
This talk considers what ‘dialect contact’ might mean and how it can be usefully applied to the other two terms in the title. I consider how data from northern Italy, in particular 1pl. verb ending –emo, can be considered as both dialectal and standard, according to the relative status assigned in the conflicting norm. This status, in turn, leads to the ongoing question of different types of standards, such as ‘incipient standard’ (Ammon 2003: 2), ‘informal standardization’ (Tuten 2001: 327), ‘ideology’ (Milroy 1991: 19), ‘failed standardization’ (Brown 2020), or standards with a ‘pluricentric base’ (Grübl 2013). The aim of the talk is to show how forms of dialect contact in the past can be interpreted in different ways according to the socio-spatial dynamics of the historic context, but also the theoretical framing of the questions posed by the researcher.
Ammon, Ulrich. 2003. On the social forces that determine what is standard in a language and on conditions of successful implementation. Sociolinguistica 17. 1–10.
Brown, Joshua. 2020. Language history from below. Standardization and koineization in Renaissance Italy. Journal of Historical Sociolinguistics. 6(1): 1-28.
Grübl, Klaus. 2013. La standardisation du français au Moyen Âge: point de vue scriptologique. Revue de Linguistique Romane 77. 343–383.
Milroy, James & Lesley Milroy. 1991. Authority in language: Investigating language prescription and standardisation. London: Routledge.
Tuten, Donald. 2001. Modeling Koineization. In Laurel J. Brinton (ed.), Historical linguistics 1999: Selected papers from the 14th international conference on historical linguistics, Vancouver, 9-13 August 1999, 325–336. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
In my research on dialect contact I have mainly worked on new dialect formation in industrial towns in Norway. New dialect formation is often considered a special case of dialect contact, as a new dialect formation situation is characterized by a sudden rise in the degree of linguistic variation in the local community, for example due to high immigration rates over a short timespan. It is also documented that most koine formation process follow a particular pattern where the various dialects in contact are levelled out, over a few generations, and a new dialect emerge. The formation of the new dialects in my research also conform to this pattern. However, when looking at the linguistic outcome of the koine formation processes, it is quite clear that the features that succeed in the levelling process are not necessarily majority variants in the feature pool of the dialects in contact; they may also be traditional local variants or standard language variants. In my opinion, this is because the contact situation is not set in a social vacuum, but happens in a broader social context of language use in the region or the nation. The language ideologies and language use patterns of the society at large, as well as ongoing linguistic changes, influence which features are used locally, i.e. the feature pool, and the new dialect that is formed is not only influenced by the dialects in contact, but also by these contextual factors. In my presentation I will give a few examples from my ongoing research on new dialect formation in Narvik and Kiruna, “twin” towns on the border of Norway and Sweden, to highlight how the different standard language ideologies and differences in standard language use in the two countries, influenced the linguistic outcome of the new dialect formation in these two towns.
The now 40+ year old research focus on contact approaches to dialectology (e.g. Trudgill 1986, Siegel 1985) has in some respects embraced, both methodologically and theoretically, some of the criticisms of the highly sedentarist and authenticist approaches to language variation that preceded it (and which continue to compete with it). Rather than entirely shunning mobile people (as traditional dialectology did and much of variationist sociolinguistics still does), it has investigated what happens when speaker contact, of different kinds, and of different durations, often motivated by mobility, brings distinct dialects together in interaction. Today, we have a rich understanding of the kinds of linguistic processes that typically occur in these contexts, and we have used these to help explain, for example, historical colonial dialect formation, supralocal regional dialect formation, second dialect acquisition, innovation diffusion, new dialect genesis and so on (see Britain 2018 for a summary). In so doing, contact dialectologists have been at the cutting edge of work aiming to describe dialect in ways that better represent how contemporary communities are made up.
Here I want to reflect, both theoretically and methodologically, however, on dialect contact research’s elephants in the room: “large presences that we collectively ignore, issues that we set aside in order to get on with our research enterprise. One might say we can’t do research without elephants, for if we didn’t take some things as given, we’d never be able to investigate anything. But eventually we have to look at those givens” (Eckert 2003: 392). What is it that we continue to tidy up and sanitise, what is it that we continue to ignore or put to one side, in order to try and find order in dialect diffuseness, to find descriptive ‘calm’ in the ‘storm’ of speakers and their speech communities in contact?
Dialect contact research, I will argue, still embodies some of the sedentarist tendencies of our predecessors in traditional dialectology, and of our colleagues in variationist sociolinguistics – it makes assumptions we need to question, assumptions which rely on stasis as the norm, rather than on mobility. Mobility is still seen as ‘special’ rather than as banale, rather than as ordinary, rather than as to be expected. My aim is not to undermine what has been achieved, but, following Eckert, to reflect upon what our achievements in the field have helped us take for granted, and upon the challenges that still face us.
Britain, David. (2018). Dialect contact and new dialect formation. In Charles Boberg, John Nerbonne & Dominic Watt (eds.), Handbook of dialectology. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 143–158
Eckert, Penelope. (2003). Elephants in the room. Journal of Sociolinguistics 7: 392–7.
Siegel, Jeff. 1985. Koines and koineization. Language in Society 14. 357–378.
Trudgill, Peter. (1986). Dialects in Contact. Oxford: Blackwell.
Join us in (virtual) Erlangen from March 17th to March 19th 2021!
Het Centrum voor Linguïstiek (CLIN) van de Vrije Universiteit Brussel en de onderzoeksgroep Grammar and Pragmatics (GaP) van de Universiteit Antwerpen zoeken een voltijds bursaal om een doctoraatsonderzoek uit te voeren en een proefschrift voor te bereiden binnen het domein van de historische sociolinguïstiek en historische pragmatiek van het Nederlands.
17th International Pragmatics Conference
Winterthur, June 2021
The making of an (in)credible witness and suspect
Historical and contemporary perspectives
on the discursive-pragmatic characteristics of depositions
Mieke Vandenbroucke (Universiteit Antwerpen)
Rik Vosters (Vrije Universiteit Brussel)
Both historical and contemporary legal procedures rely on statements by witnesses and suspects given both in-court and in previous police investigations as evidence in case decision-making. Such testimonies and depositions are typically shaped by complex co-construction by the interlocutors, while written accounts used in court are the outcome of transformative entextualisation processes (Andrus 2006; Grund 2007; Park & Bucholtz 2009). In this panel, we investigate such contemporary and historical accounts in trial proceedings, witness depositions and interrogation reports, using the present to explain the past (cf. Labov 1975), while simultaneously exploring what historical accounts can contribute to our understanding of present-day meaning making processes in testimonies.
Contemporary studies have documented how oral witness and suspect accounts come into existence through spoken question-answer sequences between interlocutors, and are shaped by a variety of questioning and answering techniques in direct and cross-examination, where meaning and evidence are negotiated through interaction (Komter 2006; Seung-Lee 2013). These encounters are power-differentiated and often highly conflictual interactions, fraught with skilful manipulation of pragma-linguistic resources (e.g. visual evidentials, marked pronominal constructions) to elicit relevant evidence and influence the court’s perception of the speaker’s identity and reliability of their testimony (Matoesian 2001).
Moreover, contemporary research has documented how the drafting process of the written account by the interrogator introduces changes to what the witness orally stated, for instance removing turn-taking through first-person accounts (Komter 2006), or filtering out hesitations and unintelligible utterances (Gallez & Maryns 2014; Rock 2001).
Historically, there is clear evidence that courtroom scribes similarly represented speech events by defendants in an unreliable fashion, making such evidence unsuited for correlational sociolinguistic analyses (Grund 2007), but opening up the possibility for historical pragmatic analyses of how entexualisation processes varied by context and evolved over time. Such discursive steering and transformative processes in turn heavily influence both how information is uncovered as evidence (Archer 2002), and how witnesses’ and suspects’ identities and credibility is construed to the court (Vartiainen 2017): elements such as the use of direct speech, for instance, are presented as markers of credibility and authenticity, even though witness testimonies are notoriously unreliable in representing the spoken word (Giordano 2012; Kytö & Walker 2003).
In this panel, we welcome papers which engage with testimonies in witness depositions, interrogation reports, or other similar courtroom or legal data, either from a contemporary or a historical perspective. We particularly welcome work focusing on the various pragmatic and textual features which shape the credibility of courtroom actors such as witnesses, suspects or experts, in either the oral account or written representation. We aim to achieve a mix of invited and submitted papers by senior and novice researchers working with historical and present-day data, and explicitly invite all participants to reflect on how we can use contemporary pragmatic research to further our understanding of historical pragmatic analyses of witness accounts by uncovering parallel linguistic and pragmatic behaviour and practices.
Call for Papers
All abstracts (300-500 words) will have to be submitted individually through the IPrA website:
Deadline: 25 October 2020
Please prepare your abstract according to the IPrA call for papers & submission guidelines (https://pragmatics.international/page/CfP), and make sure to select “The making of an (in)credible witness and suspect” as the panel for your submission.
Note that IPrA is making contingency plans for remote participation options, in the (very likely) case that not all participants will be able to be physically present at the conference due to the COVID-19 pandemic.