|Dates||2020/11/18 - 2020/11/22|
|Geolocation||38° 37' 37", -90° 11' 58"|
|Final version due|
|Tweet||Last call: DL 15th April: for the Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association (AAA), St. Louis, MO, November 2020. Send abstracts (max. 250-words) to Lilit Ghazaryan (email@example.com)|
|Export for iCalendar|
We invite papers for a panel for the Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association (AAA), taking place in St. Louis, MO in November 2020. If interested, please submit an abstract (max. 250-words) to Lilit Ghazaryan (firstname.lastname@example.org) by April 15, 2020.
Title: Highlighting Language: The interactional focus on code, rather than content.
Discussant: John Lucy (UChicago)
This panel investigates mechanisms through which language becomes salient as a code in ongoing discourse. Research on reflexivity in language has long been a cornerstone of linguistic anthropology (Silverstein 1976; Babcock 1980; Bauman and Briggs 1990). The capacity of discourse to simultaneously function as medium and object of communication lies at the heart of metapragmatic phenomena such as reported speech, translation, deictics, or poetics, and the like (Lucy 1993; Silverstein 1993). These all make pragmatically salient, and therefore “highlight (Goodwin 1994),” different aspects of discourse as their respective objects, in more or less explicit ways. While reflexivity pervades language at all levels, one type of metapragmatic discourse explicitly deals with the code itself (sensu Jakobson 1956). For example, “correcting” someone’s pronunciation or teaching the phoneme of a different language, inevitably highlight the form a linguistic signal takes. In this panel, we are interested in such phenomena, yet we ask specifically: Can we draw attention to the code but without the use of overtly metapragmatic expressions. In other words, how is the linguistic code highlighted without explicitly talking about it?
We invite papers exploring the mechanisms that highlight language yet which do not rely on explicit metapragmatic expressions. We are especially interested in strategies such as repairs (Schegloff et al. 1977), recasts (Chouinard and Clark 2003), repetitions (Rossi 2019), replacements (Sidnell and Barnes 2013), and recycling of prior talk (Goodwin 2018), as well as prosody, other aspects of delivery, and nonverbal means, which are likely to play crucial roles. Such strategies for interactional highlighting may certainly occur in talk that also includes overtly metapragmatic discourse. We do not want to disregard the latter, yet we hope to focus on the particular work that is accomplished by the former. While we hope to analyze specifically those practices where the attention is on linguistic form, we recognize that often some aspects of the code is highlighted in order to also achieve some other pragmatic effect—the code is, in fact, rarely the only focus of attention in metalinguistic and metapragmatic acts.
- Lilit Ghazaryan (UCLA)
- Jan David Hauck (LSE)