Workshops

Possible topics of papers include:

• the embodiment of cognitive faculties, the understanding of intentional action, the perception of temporality, and the emotional evaluation of experience
• the use of evidentiality markers, expressions that explicitly mention the sensory perceptions of their authors, semantic embodiment, deictics, tense and aspect and cognitive metaphors
• Ancient ideas on evidentiality (ekphrasis and enargeia).

Abstracts should include a research question concerning the subject of the workshop, indication of the research method and the corpus.

Bibliography:

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Evidentiality, Oxford Handbooks (2018; online edn, Oxford Academic, 7 Mar. 2018), https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198759515.001.0001

Allan, R. J. and Van Gils, L.W. 2016. ‘Anchoring New Ideas in Common Ground: A Linguistic Approach’, Proceedings of Anchoring Innovation in Antiquity, 17-20 December 2015.

Allan, R.J, I.J.F de Jong, C.C de Jonge, ‘From Enargeia to Immersion: The Ancient Roots of a Modern Concept’, Style (University Park, PA) 51 (2017) 34–51.

Caracciolo. M. 2014. The Experientiality of Narrative. An enactive Approach. Berlin / Boston.

Fedriani, C. (2011). Experiential metaphors in Latin: feelings were containers, movements and things possessed. Transactions of the Philological Society, 109(3), 307–326. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-968X.2011.01284.x

Fedriani, C. (2014). Experiential constructions in Latin. Leiden: Brill.

Fedriani, C. and Irene De Felice. (eds.) (in prep.). Studies in Cognitive Classical Semantics. Metaphor, Emotion, Embodiment. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.

Grethlein, Jonas, Luuk Huitink, ‘Homer’s Vividness: An Enactive Approach’, The Journal of Hellenic studies 137 (2017) 67–91 .

Grethlein, Jonas, Luuk Huitink, Aldo Carlo Fernando Tagliabue. (2020). Experience, narrative, and criticism in Ancient Greece : under the spell of stories.

Kroon, C.H.M. fthc. ‘Communicative anchoring in Latin. Devices and strategies for common ground management’, in A. M. Martín Rodríguez (ed.), Linguisticae Dissertationes. Madrid.

Martina Temmerman (2021). Experientiality and evidentiality: a linguistic analysis of the expression of sensory perception in travel journalism, Studies in Travel Writing, 25:1, 82-93, DOI: 10.1080/13645145.2021.1992824

Meineck, P., Short, W. M., & Devereaux, J. (2019). The Routledge handbook of classics and cognitive theory.

Mocciaro, E. and W.M. Short (eds.) (2019). Towards a Cognitive Classical Linguistics. The Embodied Basis of constructions in Greek and Latin. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Short, W. M. (2016). Embodiment in Latin Semantics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.174

Stienaers, David. “54. Linguistic features of peaks in Latin narrative texts”. LATINITATIS RATIONES: Descriptive and Historical Accounts for the Latin Language, edited by Paolo Poccetti, Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter, 2016, pp. 902-916. https://doi-org.ezproxy.leidenuniv.nl/10.1515/9783110431896-056

Stockwell, P. 2020. Cognitive Poetics. London.

van Gils, L., & Kroon, C. (2022). “Chapter 33 Common Ground and the Presentation of Emotions: Fright and Horror in Livy’s Historiography”. In Emotions and Narrative in Ancient Literature and Beyond. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill. doi: https://doi-org.ezproxy.leidenuniv.nl/10.1163/9789004506053_035

Websites:

The Lexicon of Embodied Experience in Latin: project Università di Genova

Website on Cognitive Classics

The corpus of Latin texts contains a great number of passages and works reproducing talk-in-interaction: not only in comedy and tragedy, or in philosophical and literary dialogues as well as speeches, but also in passages of epic poetry, historiography, satire and novel. By studying these texts as talk-in-interaction one can show how the orderliness of naturally occurring dialogue (and the social order that stands behind it) is being reproduced through conventions as well as (author’s) preconceived notions and semi-automatic communicative habits. Applications of dialogue-oriented approaches may also include a sharper definition of markers of orality in written texts, as well as distinctions between the representation of conversation in different literary genres (e.g. comedy vs. tragic dialogue), also in comparison with non-literary sources.

Apart from the focus on interactional aspects of languages use, we would also want to stress the importance of data-driven and inductive approaches. The central research method for investigating the structure and process of face-to-face interaction as offered by Conversation Analysis and launched by the seminal papers of Harvey Sacks, Emanual Schegloff and Gail Jefferson from the 1960s and 1970s (see Lerner 2004) seems to be particularly suitable for corpus research in languages such as Latin and Greek. The bottom-up microanalytical approach allows the scholars to avoid using a priori assumptions or inferences not grounded in the text. As we have been all trained to do for our (predominantly literary) corpus, CA analysts keep close to data, focusing on what the participants of the interaction ostensibly make of the ongoing situation (cf. Schegloff 2007; a good overview can also be gained from the CA Handbook edited by Sidnell and Stives, 2013). Over the last decades we have seen how conversation-analytic approaches significantly impacted the field of Classical Linguistics (cf. e.g. Hoffmann 1983; Schuren 2014; Van Emde Boas 2017; as well as some of the papers in Iurescia, F., & Martin, G. (eds) 2019 and Unceta Gómez, L. & Ł. Berger (eds) 2022) with special prominence of Latin (dramatic) dialogues (e.g. Roesch 2005, Monserrat 2015, Berger 2020). The Santiago workshop added a number of rewarding further insights along these lines, in papers dealing with, among other things, interruptions, orality, conversational behaviour, and nonverbal gestures in conflict situations in comedy and tragedy; the use of certain discourse markers (age, agite, and tum) in dialogue; but also the application conversational strategies in non-conversational discourse.

Therefore we cordially invite researchers that want to (again) present a paper along the lines sketched above to send in their abstracts.

Possible subtopics of interest include, but are not limited to:
– Alternation of speakers: self- and other-selection
– Turn design and its anatomy (internal organization of utterances)
– Interruptions and self-interrupted speech (reticentia)
– Sequence organization (adjacency, preference, dispreference, etc.)
– Dialogue cohesion, nextness, and congruity
– Im/politeness and conflictual talk, miscommunication, and repair sequence
– Construction of ‘self’ in dialogue, performing gender and status in conversation
– The use of multi-functional tokens: pragmatic and discourse markers.
– Markers of orality in written texts- Aspects of the literary representation of natural conversation in different genres

NB:
Although we respect the congress’s official languages (English, French, German, Italian, Latin and Spanish), to facilitate the discussion, we strongly encourage the participants to present their contributions in English. Accepted papers will be limited to 20 minutes.

For further information about the workshop: lukasz.berger@amu.edu.pl or r.risselada@uva.nl

Bibliography:
Berger, Ł. (2020). Forms of talk in Roman comedy. Reading Plautus and Terence with Goffman and conversation analysts. Dionysus ex machina, 11, 137-167.
Emde Boas, E. van (2017). “Analyzing Agamemnon: conversation analysis and particles in Greek tragic dialogue.” Classical Philology, 112(4), 411-434.
Hoffmann, M. E., (1983). “Conversation openings in the comedies of Plautus.” In H. Pinkster, ed., Latin Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: Benjamins, pp. 217- 226.
Iurescia, F., & Martin, G. (2019). “CLOSING CONFLICTS: Conversational strategies across. Leiden: Brill.
Lerner, G. H. (ed.). (2004). Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Montserrat Roig, C., (2015). “Otras perspectivas para el análisis lingüístico de Plauto: los vocativos insultantes en la reacción conversacional.” Minerva 28, 133-161.
Roesch, S., (2005). “L’échec des clôtures du dialogue dans les comédies de Plaute.” Journal of Latin Linguistics 9 (2), 921-932.
Sacks, H. (ed. by G. Jefferson & E.A. Schegloff, 1992). Lectures on conversation. Oxford: Blackwell.
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge etc.: University of Cambridge.
Schuren, L. (2014). Shared Storytelling in Euripidean Stichomythia, Amsterdam, Brill.
Sidnell, J. & T. Stivers (eds, 2013). The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Oxford etc: Blackwell.
Unceta Gómez, L. & Ł. Berger (eds, 2022). Politeness in Ancient Greek and Latin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.