ICHoLS XI Workshops

In addition to the lectures and discussions on the history of the language sciences, which will not be thematically limited, the following workshops will take place.

La linguistique dans l’histoire de l’enseignement de la langue française

Brigitte Lépinette (Valencia) e-mail

Société Internationale pour l’histoire du français langue étrangère ou seconde (SIHFLES)

Linguistics and Rhetoric

Anca Gata (Galati, Romania) e-mail

Micronesian and Philippine linguistics before the advent of structuralism

Thomas Stolz, Universität Bremen (Germany) e-mail

The Development of Sociolinguistics in Europe in the second half of the 20th Century

Norbert Dittmar, Free University of Berlin, e-mail

The Indian Traditions of Language Studies

Jean-Luc Chevillard, CNRS -- Université Paris 7 (France), e-mail
Emilie Aussant, Université de Bordeaux III (France), e-mail

The Notion of Person in Greek Grammar

Andreas Schmidhauser, University of Geneva (Switzerland), e-mail

 


next >>

La linguistique dans l’histoire de l’enseignement de la langue française

Brigitte Lépinette (Valencia) e-mail

Société Internationale pour l’histoire du français langue étrangère ou seconde (SIHFLES)

La SIHFLES est née d’un besoin d’histoire. Les politiques de rénovation menées un peu partout dans le monde dans le domaine de l’enseignement des langues et plus particulièrement dans celui du français, le développement de la recherche en didactique comme en linguistique, l’introduction des technologies nouvelles, ont à ce point bouleversé le paysage intellectuel et institutionnel du français que le lien avec une certaine tradition du travail dans l’enseignement des langues risquait d’être rompu. Réintroduire la longue durée dans l’appréciation des innovations engagées un peu partout dans le monde, rappeler les formes de l’expérience et du savoir accumulées, constituaient le contrepoint indispensable à ce très large mouvement d’innovation.
Le congrès ICHOLS X à Urbana-Champaign a ouvert une tradition d’intégration d’un atelier de la SIFLES dans les congrès ICHOLS que nous voulons continuer. En se focalisant sur l’histoire de la linguistique et notamment le développement de la grammaire et de la pragmatique, les participants présenteront et discuteront des contributions sur l’enseignement du français et son histoire.
Pour l’inscription, suivez les consignes sur la page http://www.ichols-xi.de/. Les résumés sont à adresser à l’adresse générale du congrès :

<< last - next >>

Linguistics and Rhetoric

Anca Gata (Galati, Romania) e-mail

The relations between theories of grammar and, since the end of the 19th century, linguistics (understood as a science about language structure), on the one hand, and rhetoric (conceived of as a discourse discipline offering a systematic account of effective and persuasive communication), on the other hand, have always been very complex. At present, while some scholars claim the absolute irreducibility of linguistics and rhetoric to each other, the others stress their intrinsic relationships and therefore advocate the necessity of bridging the historical and conceptual gaps in order to elaborate an interface theory of language structure and communication. In the last decades one can observe indeed an increasing interest in the needs of linguistics for rhetoric (first of all in connection with discourse pragmatics), and vice versa.
The workshop aims at investigating the roots of this mutual interest, partly in order to outline some possible paths of fruitful interactions in the future. Thus, the goal of the workshop is to assemble contributions on the complex relationships between these two areas of study.
Topics of talks during the workshop should preferably concentrate on the mutual relationships and comparisons between linguistics (or theories of grammar) and rhetoric in certain periods or on descriptions of selected phenomena analysed from linguistic and rhetoric points of view, such as:


<< last - next>>

Micronesian and Philippine linguistics before the advent of structuralism

Thomas Stolz, Universität Bremen (Germany) e-mail

European conquerors, missionaries, explorers, traders, sailors and settlers began to visit the islands of Austronesia and neighbouring regions from the 16th century onwards. In this way, contact was made with the indigenous people of many territories which sooner or later were turned into colonial possessions first of Spain and Portugal, later on also of other powers such as Great Britain, the Netherlands, France, Germany, the United States and ultimately Japan. In the initial phase and mostly for the practical purposes of Christianization, the new European masters took pains to provide means for the description and teaching of selected languages of their recently acquired dominion. Since the vast expanse of the Pacific Ocean remained outside the centre of interest of the colonizers for a long time, the first efforts to describe and analyse indigenous languages in this part of the world were made on the westernmost rim of the Pacific, namely in the Philippines and in the Marianas where the focus of economical interests of Spain lay. Grammars were written, dictionaries compiled and sacral texts translated in a limited number of languages. Many of these materials including those which were produced until the Spanish-American War of 1898 (and into the early 20th century) have never been published in print. These early examples of Micronesian and Philippine linguistics still await a critical retrospective appraisal from the vantage point of our contemporary knowledge. The same applies to the contributions by the successors of Spain in the Philippine Islands and Micronesia. There is valuable linguistic information provided by American, German, Japanese and also Dutch authors on the languages of this region mostly written around the turn of the 19th century. Many of these contributions were originally published in languages other than English (or Spanish) and thus have not received the attention they would merit among the international community of specialists.  The workshop therefore is meant to take stock of what there is in terms of linguistically relevant material to be edited or re-edited in a format that renders the texts accessible to the wider public (including the indigenous speech-communities). The participants of the workshop are expected to contribute substantially to the creation of an international network of linguists working jointly on the early history of Philippine and Micronesian linguistics.


<< last - next>>

The development of sociolinguistics in Europe in the second half of the 20th century

Norbert Dittmar, Free University of Berlin, e-mail

Sociolinguistics emerged as a field in Europe in the sixties of the 20th century. Although no larger empirical study of its development has been published comparable to American Sociolinguistics by Stephan Murray (1998), some articles have started to look back at it and to give first accounts of its emergence as an institutionalized interdisciplinary field between linguistics and sociology. Instead of having one “main responsible” and “overall important person” like Ferguson in the USA (cf. Murray 1998), the authorities and driving forces of its development in Europe are quite heterogeneous and multilayered. The section ‘sociolinguistics’ invites scholars all over the world to present a contribution clearing up the following questions (and problems in their periphery):

  1. How and to what degree were the ‘early days of sociolinguistics’ in central Europe influenced by British (i.e. Bernstein) and North American studies (i.e. Labov, Hymes, Gumperz, cf. Murray 1998)? What are the similarities and differences?
  2. Which were the driving forces of the development of theory and methods in Western countries like the FRG, Italy, France as opposed to the Eastern (socialist) countries like the former GDR, Poland or Romania? How did scientific knowledge emerge in the one and in the other case? In which ways has the discipline been institutionalized differently in the two contexts? Of course, the case of the two Germanies will be very revealing.
  3. Which personalities or groups were driving forward the state of knowledge in sociolinguistics? To what extent were the student movement, sub-academic groups and political parties engaged in sociolinguistics?
  4. Is there a sequence of relevant topics in the beginning and in the later phases rankable according to socio-political values, problems and urgencies in the society? Is this topical picture homogeneous or heterogeneous in Europe according to the social and political background in the particular countries? (Topics were (among others) working class speech, social dimensions of dialects, minority languages, migration, sex-specific communicative behavior, youth language). Which ideology has been used to establish the relevance of the topic?
  5. Are there typical “European” methods in doing sociolinguistics? Do they depend (and in what way) on the scientific culture of the particular country?
  6. Which (different) patterns of diffusion can be found in the distribution of ideas and knowledge in European sociolinguistics?

These are some of the relevant questions – others might be focused around them. It would be important to present documents and materials in order to enlighten trends, historical developments, the acceptance and refusal of topics on the one hand and theoretical, ideological, methodological approaches on the other hand, looking i.e. at reviews, newsletters, forewords of working books, readers, contributions at conferences etc. It would be exciting to work together by working empirically on the issues of European sociolinguistics and first hypotheses of its development.


<< last --- next >>

The Indian Traditions of Language Studies

Jean-Luc Chevillard, CNRS -- Université Paris 7 (France), e-mail
Emilie Aussant, Université de Bordeaux III (France), e-mail

The tradition of language studies has very ancient roots in India. Its most well-known  masterpiece is Panini's « grammar» of Sanskrit  but it also comprises other disciplines (such as etymology, phonetics, ...) and it has also been concerned with other languages (such as Tamil, Kannada, Pali, ...). Alongside the numerous native Indian language scholars (such as Katyayana, Patanjali, Nagojibhatta, Candragomin, Kaccayana, ...),  a number of scholars from countries all over the world have been deeply involved in the study of the Indian native linguistic disciplines for at least 2 or 3 centuries. Some of the well-known names are Kielhorn, Böhtlingk, Lassen, Renou, Thieme, Beschi, Gundert, .... to mention just a few. It must also be added that the contact with Sanskrit (and with its descriptions) has also had a profound impact on the development of comparative grammar and general linguistics in the Western countries (as testified by the historical importance of the works of Bopp, Whitney, Bloomfield, ...).

On the occasion of ICHoLS XI which will take place in Potsdam from 28th August to 2nd September 2008, we invite all those interested in the history of the Indian tradition of language studies, in its impact outside India and in the many ways it has become part of world heritage, to participate in a panel which will be devoted to all those topics.


<< last

The Notion of Person in Greek Grammar

Andreas Schmidhauser, University of Geneva (Switzerland), e-mail

http://schmidhauser.us/contact

The grammatical category of person has been widely discussed in the last years but a generally accepted account has yet to be found. Our workshop proposes to contribute to this quest by first unearthing the original notion of person and then following its trajectory over the course of a millenium. The focus of our discussion will be on the various definitions proposed by the Greek grammarians:
    /i/ Aristarchus (second cent. BC) in all likelihood first used the notion of person. Since none of his works has survived, we shall begin by trying to establish what this notion was and how he came to it. We shall then examine how it is related to the well-known definition of person found in the Techne, the manual attributed to Aristarchus’ pupil Dionysius Thrax.
    /ii/ In his treatise on pronouns, Apollonius Dyscolus (second cent. AD) famously showed the standard definition of person in terms of speaker and addressee to be inappropriate. Scholars disagree on whether Apollonius’ amended version escapes his criticisms.
    /iii/ Choeroboscus (ninth cent.) cites the Techne’s definition in his commentary on Theodosius’ Verbal Canons, proves it wrong, and then argues for a more complete version, directly inspired by Apollonius’ proposal in the Pronoun, yet, it appears, not identical to it.
    /iv/ Papyri afford a few precious echoes of the ancient debates.


 

 

Kontakt

Universität Potsdam
Philosophische Fakultät
Institut für Romanistik
Prof. Dr. Gerda Haßler
Karl-Liebknecht-Str. 24-25 (14.039)
14476 Golm
Tel: 0331/977-2015
Fax: 0331/977-2193
E-Mail: ichols-xiatuni-potsdam.de

Bild von den Communs