ICODOC 2021 > Call for PapersKnowledge and language: acquisition, transmission, manifestation The theme for the 2021 edition of the ICODOC young researchers’ conference will be knowledge. It is a broad concept that can be explored from multiple points of view and with diverse methods. We will adopt a linguistic perspective aiming to investigate the link between knowledge and language, as the latter can be a tool for the manifestation, the transmission and also the transformation of the former. Such an approach is adopted at the ICAR laboratory, where the relation between language and knowledge is studied from various perspectives: knowledge acquisition through the use of language, as in different contexts of institutionalized education (Tiberghien, 2016 ; Veillard & Lambert, 2015 ; Blanc, 2014), between parents and children, within a group of peers or in other contexts ; the acquisition of language itself, for instance in children’s cognitive processes (Lund, 2016), the learning of a foreign language or the transmission and construction of knowledge in language teaching (Guichon & Koné, 2015), and the management of knowledge in bilingualism (Cohen, 2016). Another research topic is the presentation and co-construction of knowledge in interaction (Lund, 2019 ; Mondada, 2013) and in languages from different families, with, for example, a focus on the question of epistemics and evidentiality (Drubig, 2001 ; Bickel, 2008). In other cases, knowledge is approached as an object within a semiotic system (Badir, 2010 ; Basso, 2015) or by examining the difficulties of preserving information in translation, depending on contextual and cultural differences (Alunni, 2013; Capri, 2006). Even though researchers in human and social sciences often represent knowledge in their own fields, they need the input of other people in order to both solicit and question their interlocutors’ knowledge. Therefore, one may wonder what knowledge actually is, where it comes from, and how it is distributed. We want to propose a reflection around these questions and the notions of "acquisition, transmission, manifestation", in line with the following four axes:
1. Knowledge and learning At a time when the acquisition of standardized and institutionalized knowledge is socially and economically valued, it seems important to investigate the role of language practices in the construction of knowledge. Firstly, it can be transmitted in a family context, from parents to children, but also between peers (whether it is conscious or not, namely in everyday situations where the exchange of knowledge can occur unintentionally). Besides this first transmission, know-how and social skills can also be acquired in a school setting, such as kindergartens, secondary schools and high schools, and also in vocational training centers, in which language can be described as both a vector and an object of learning at the same time (Pelé-Peycelon, 2018; Lambert & Fillietaz, 2019). Whereas these two contexts overlap and interweave throughout life, institutional knowledge may differ from learning in a family context, which can in particular lead to discrimination and social disparity as pointed out by Heath (1984). Language highly contributes to this disparity. For example, we can think of migrants whose languages and cultures are not necessarily recognized or considered legitimate within a society's ideology (Rojo, 2010). Therefore, we would like to discuss knowledge and learning in relation to the following questions: - Which conditions facilitate or hinder access to knowledge? - How can we relate family-built knowledge and institutional knowledge? - What diction can we use to transmit knowledge in a more efficient way?
2. Knowledge in interaction We can also study knowledge in the context of social interaction, notably by looking at moments of tension or epistemic asymmetry where the interactants have to (re)negotiate their shared (or not shared) knowledge without letting the trouble settle in their exchange. The interactional mechanisms implicated in this co-construction have been investigated within conversation analysis where the analytical focus has been placed on sequential, syntactical and prosodic aspects and their role as indicators of the speaker’s state of knowledge (Labov & Fanshel, 1977; Raymond, 2003). They have also highlighted an “epistemic engine” governing the co-construction and the negotiation of knowledge in interaction (Heritage, 2012a, 2012b). Beyond this “micro” level, one can notice the existence of social situations in which the imbalance of knowledge is more salient and even becomes the driving force of the social interaction: as for example in police interrogations (Stokoe, 2009; Antaki & Stokoe, 2019), medical consultations (Ten Have, 2001; Piccoli, Ticca & Traverso, 2019), or classroom interactions (Seedhouse, 2004). In order to explore the interactional aspects of knowledge, we invite you to consider the following questions: - How does the presence or absence of knowledge manifest itself in interaction? - What are the mechanisms of co-construction and negotiation of knowledge in interaction? - What are the multimodal and verbal ways participants use to reduce an imbalance or an epistemic asymmetry? - How is knowledge shown and disseminated in interaction? - What are the resources participants use to negotiate the construction and the receiving of knowledge?
3. Knowledge and society The globalisation of the communication flow and the generalised access to media tend to redefine all information in terms of knowledge (fake news are considered as non-knowledge, for example), while at the same time transforming the reception and the communication of these data. In fact, all informative data brought up during a verbal exchange could potentially produce new knowledge, which is debatable, made public and which circulates, notably through new kinds of mobility and through the use of information and communication technologies, in a context of “diversification of the diversity” (Jacquemet, 2016). Nevertheless, it is in society that we can observe an asymmetry between knowing and not-knowing, experts and novices as well as linguistic strategies to reach knowledge or know-how. In this way, the social space remains a place of tension and power relations between the keepers of the norms of knowledge on the one hand, and on the other hand the non-specialists, finding themselves denied of their rights and decisional powers, on the pretext of lacking the necessary, primarily linguistic, competences (Candea & Véron, 2019). Knowledge is neither defined, nor does it manifest itself in the same way at all times, depending on different criteria and variables, whether they be demographical or in relation to the languages used, the interlocutors or the speakers’ linguistic ideologies (Ticca & Traverso, 2017). We invite you to base your reflections on the following questions: - What place and role do ICTs occupy in the access to and the diffusion of knowledge? - Should knowledge be redefined in the context of the current diversity of multilingual, migratory and digital practices? - What are the resources and linguistic skills that determine the access to knowledge in society? - How is linguistic knowledge demonstrated in social spaces?
4. Knowledge and reflexivity Knowledge is at the heart of a researcher’s life: it is an objective to reach (production of knowledge), a working tool (documentation), and a personal matter (personal interests, overflow of the research activity in private life). Their aim being to treat knowledge which is already available - even if the time of polymathy is over since the amount of knowledge has become too big - and especially to produce knowledge, the question of legitimacy frequently arises, notably among young researchers. - How is knowledge used, especially when produced by young researchers? - At what point can we consider to possess knowledge? What degree of normativity is required by institutionalised academic work? - What are the researchers' responsibilities concerning the knowledge they produce? - How can we protect the knowledge we produce, for instance against plagiarism? To what extent should we make it accessible? - What should be the place of scientific popularisation?
Format of contributions We will accept two presentation formats either in French or in English:
The contribution proposals will have to comprise an abstract (5000 characters maximum including spaces) and a short 5-reference bibliography (not included in the character count). Each participant may only submit one proposal (oral presentation or poster). Each contribution will be double-blindly evaluated.
More information on the format of contributions here : https://icodoc.sciencesconf.org/resource/page?forward-action=page&forward-controller=resource&id=13&lang=en Submit your contribution here : https://icodoc.sciencesconf.org/submission/submit?forward-action=submit&forward-controller=submission&lang=en Bibliography Alunni, C. (2013). De la traductibilité des Savoirs. Revue Sciences/Lettres, 1, pp. 1-17. Antaki, C. & Stokoe, E. (2017). When Police Treat Straightforward Answers as Uncooperative. Journal of Pragmatics, 117, pp. 1-15. Badir, S. (2010). Sémiotique de la connaissance. SIGNATA. Analyse des sémiotiques,, 1, pp. 239-253. Barbier, J.-M. (2011). Savoirs théoriques et savoir d'action. Paris, PUF. 316 p. Basso Fossali, P. (2019). L’image du devenir : le monde en chiffres et la passion du monitorage. SIGNATA. Analyse des sémiotiques, 10, pp. 1-29. Bemporad, C. (ed.). (2016). Apprendre les langues. Jeux de pouvoir et enjeux identitaires. Langage et société. 157(3). Bickel, B. (2008). Verb agreement and epistemic marking: a typological journey from the Himalayas to the Caucasus. In Hubert, B., Volkart, M. & Widmer, P. Chomolangma, Demawend und Kasbek: Festschrift für Roland Bielmeier zu seinem, pp. 1-14. Blanc, N. (2014). Artefacts, supports et multimodalité, médiation aux apprentissages linguistiques à l’école : de la langue aux savoirs. Dans M. Leclère & J.P. Narcy-Combes (dirs.) Enseigner les langues aux enfants en contexte scolaire : diversité des approches et outils d’enseignement, Riveneuve éditions, pp. 177-193. Cadet, L. & Lavieu-Gwozdz, B. (eds.) (2019). Circulation des savoirs entre recherche et formation. Le français aujourd'hui, 204 (1). 196 p. Candea, M., & Véron, L. (2019). Le français est à nous ! Petit manuel d’émancipation linguistique. Paris, La Découverte, 239 p. Carpi, E. (2006). Traduction écrite et didactique des langues : entre communication et éducation interculturelle. ÉLA. Études de Linguistique Appliquée, 141 (1), pp. 69-76. Chambon, N., Lambert, P., Ticca, A.-C., Traverso, V. (à paraître). Le patient, le médecin et l’interprète dans les consultations médicales d’expertise pour la demande d’asile, Raconter, relater, traduire : paroles de la migration, Paris, L’Harmattan. Charaudeau, P., & Gorce, X. (2020). La manipulation de la vérité: du triomphe de la négation aux brouillages de la post-vérité. Limoges : Lambert-Lucas. 172 p. Cohen, C. (2016). Relating input factors and dual language proficiency in French-English bilingual children. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 19 (3), pp. 296-313. Demir, Ö.E. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2016). Gesture's Role in Learning and Processing Language. In G. Hickok & S. L. Small, Neurobiology of Language, pp. 275-283. Goffman, E. (1974). Les Rites d’interaction, Paris, Minuit. Groupes de recherche Quart Monde-Université et Quart Monde Partenaire (2008). Le croisement des savoirs et des pratiques. Paris : Éditions Quart Monde. 704 p. Guichon, N. & Koné, S. (2015). Étudiants internationaux et technologies numériques nomades: vers un contrat didactique renégocié. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 41(3), pp. 1-22. Hambye, P. & Siroux, J.-L. (2019). La formation aux métiers de service dans l'enseignement professionnel: quelles compétences langagières pour quelles finalités ? Langage et société, 168 (3), pp. 49-67. Heurley, Laurent (2001): Du langage à l'action : le fonctionnement des textes procéduraux. Langages, 141. pp. 64-78. Heritage, J. (2012a). Epistemics in Action: Action Formationand Territories of Knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), pp. 1-29. Heritage, John. (2012b). The Epistemic Engine: Sequence Organization and Territories of Knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), pp. 30-52. Jacquemet, M. (2016). Sociolinguistics, Superdiversity and Asylum. Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies, 171, pp. 1-29. Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/No interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review, 68, pp. 939-967. Lambert, P. & Veillard, L. (2017). L’atelier, les gars et la revue technique pratiques et différenciations langagières en lycée professionnel, Glottopol, 59, pp. 52-89. Labov, William & Fanshel, David. (1977). Therapeutic discourse: Psychotherapy as conversation. Academic Press, New York. Léger, A. (2000). Le débat Bernstein-Labov: différences langagières ou inégalités ? [En ligne] Consulté le 22 octobre 2020 sur http://alainleger.free.fr/textes/divers.pdf. Lund, K. (2016). Modeling the Individual Within the Group: an Interdisciplinary Approach to Collaborative Knowledge Construction [mémoire de HDR, Université Grenoble-Alpes]. 199 p. Lund, K. (2019) Building and regulating cognitive, linguistic, and interactional aspects of knowledge between the individual and the group. Computers in Human Behavior, 100, pp. 370-383. Mondada, L. (2013). Displaying, contesting and negotiating epistemic authority in social interaction: Descriptions and questions in guided visits. Discourse Studies, 15(5), pp. 597-626. Pelé-Peycelon, M. (2018) Devenir Maître d’apprentissage : configurations et affordances pour construire sa pratique tutorale en entreprise. [Thèse de doctorat, Université Lumière Lyon 2], Sous la direction de Laurent Veillard et Bruno Cuvillier, soutenue le 28 novembre 2018. Pelé-Peycelon, M. & Alcade C., (2018). Chercheur-ressource : questions d’engagements sur le terrain. SHS Web of Conferences, 52, pp. 1-11. Piccoli, V., Ticca, A. C. & Traverso, V. (2019). « Go internet here » : démarches administratives de personnes précaires ou en demande d’asile. Langage et Société, 167 (2), pp. 81-110. Ten Have, P. (2001). Lay Diagnosis in Interaction. Text, 21(1-2), pp. 251-260. Stokoe, E. (2009) “For the benefit of the tape”: Formulating embodied conduct in designedly uni-modal recorded police–suspect interrogations. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(10), pp. 1887-1904. Seedhouse P. (2004). The Interactional Architecture of the Language Classroom: A Conversation Analysis Perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Stivers, T., Mondada, L., & Steensig, J. (2011). Knowledge, morality and affiliation in social interaction. In The morality of knowledge in conversation, Cambridge University Press. Tiberghien, A. (2016). How does knowledge live in a classroom?. In N. Papadouris, A. Hadjigeorgiou & C. Constantinous. Insights from Research in Science Teaching and Learning, Springer, pp.11-27. Ticca, A. C. & Traverso, V. (2017). Participation in bilingual interactions: Translating, interpreting and mediating documents in a French social centre. Journal of Pragmatics, 107, pp. 129-146. Ticca, A. C. & Traverso, V (dir.), (2015). Traduire et interpréter en situations sociales. Santé, éducation, justice, Langage & Société, 153, 186 p. Veillard, L. & Lambert, P. (2015). Analyse comparée des processus didactiques dans trois contextes d’apprentissage en lycée professionnel.Dans F. Chnane-Davin & J.-P. Cuq (dirs.), Approche comparative des savoirs et des compétences en didactiques, Editions Riveneuve, pp. 277-298. |
| Online user: 2 | Privacy |
|
