ICODOC 2024 > Call for papers

Click here to download the call for papers in pdf.

If language can exercise power, power can reciprocally manifest itself through language practices. It is, among other things, from an institutional point of view that the problematic of an “order of discourse” (Foucault, 1971) has been approached. Based on the effects of the performativity of language (Austin, 1962; Butler, 2004 [1997]; Boutet, 2010), the symbolic value attributed to it (Bourdieu, 2001), and the patterns of domination conveyed by language, the research has shown that power is not an inherent characteristic of individuals, but is linked to the communication situations that imply it, especially in the institution. The legitimacy of language practices, far from being natural, is constructed by social norms and rituals (Goffman, 1974) which do not, however, erase the agentivity of individuals (Ahearn, 2001). 

These few thoughts raise the following questions:

• Who exercises power and how?
• In what way(s) is power transmitted through language?
• How is legitimate language constructed and reproduced? 

These relations between language and power can be approached in various ways within the following axes.

Axis 1: Acting on language, expressing power

The first form of power to which a language bears witness are the rules and norms that govern its functioning. To question the normativity of a language or languages is to be interested first in the institutions that establish these norms. The study of language policies has made it possible to understand how these arrangements govern “the modernization (of the lexicon, of the graphic system), the defense or expansion of a language, the relationships between languages, development, and the will to unify a country linguistically” (Calvet, 2021). In addition, the notion of glottopolitics (Guespin and Marcellesi, 1986) has enabled to highlight the actions of actors who are separate from the state and its institutions. For instance, the fact that individual and collective practices of inclusive writing have become sufficiently widespread for the French Ministry of the Interior to prohibit it in the public service (circular of 21-11-17 n°5189/SG), demonstrates that there are different scales of action on language that interact. These power actions can also be expressed at a finer grain of analysis, particularly through the use of modalities (Gosselin, 2010), expressions from the lexical field of domination or capacity, and in political discourses (Keel and Mondada, 2017).

This axis aims at exploring the following questions:

• How are the norms of a language constructed? Through which media, institutions, over time, by which actors and actresses?
• How is power thematized or represented in and through language and discourse?
• What meaning can be given to the use of “to be able to”? What role do modalities play?

Axis 2: Acting through language, bringing into existence

Denomination is another form of the power of language. Establishing a more demanding referential relationship than that of designation, it establishes a prior link between a sign and an entity in the real world (Kleiber, 1984). The act of denomination sets a referential fixation, thus it can bring something into existence in the social space. As a cultural act, this can give rise to selective axiological interpretations (cf. the subjective evaluations attributed to a language according to the richness/poorness of its lexicon). To bring something into existence, one can resort to borrowings or neologisms. This reflects the social act of language which responds to a need for communication (Vendryes, 1968 [1921]). Yet, it is the power dynamics between social groups that determine whether (and how) a new terminology will be accepted and used over time.

The notion of agentivity is relevant in this respect, as it stems from action, the ability to act through socio-cultural knowledge and a certain control over one's own behavior (Duranti, 2004). It is used to explain identity tensions and resistance against power that manifest themselves in various contexts, such as: i) creation of suburban languages, slangs as a collective assertion, ii) marker of identity and belonging to certain social categories (Wiese, 2015); or iii) creation or innovation in language based on aesthetic and/or emancipatory needs (reappropriation of terms, inclusive writing) (Duranti, 2011). If we consider the performative power of language, a totalitarian language can be seen as an act of coercion, excluding all other thought. Confronting this language(s) of power while manipulating it at the same time can thus create group identities, being in itself an act of resistance (Scott, 2009) or an expression of conformity.

This axis aims at exploring the following questions:

• Who can bring a new name into the language and by what means/power issues?
• How do languages reflect the underlying power?
• How and by what means can we act against power through language?

Axis 3: Power asymmetries

Power relations are constantly negotiated in interactions and the resulting asymmetries are observable at both the sequential and enunciatory levels. This is related not only to the different statuses of the participants but also to their common orientation towards the goal of the interaction (Mondada & Keel, 2017). The asymmetry in the interaction is therefore not static, but can be balanced by the participants in different ways. Furthermore, from a psychological perspective, interactants bear representations, their own worldview (Koltko-Rivera, 2004), their personality type, which plays on power relations (e.g. via the feeling of self-efficacy) and influences language use. In particular, we will find different enunciative markers depending on the hierarchical position of the speaker, and strategies to attenuate, maintain or reinforce the hierarchy (such as politeness markers or jargon).

Conversely, while social contexts impact language, language plays an important role in a person's well-being and place in society (Baldo et al. 2015; St Clair et al, 2011). Indeed, it is crucial for the expression of thought and socialization, which is particularly disabling for people with language disorders, such as aphasia and dyslexia, as well as for non-native people who must find alternative ways to communicate (Piccoli & Traverso, 2020).

This axis aims at exploring the following questions:

• How is asymmetry negotiated in interaction?
• What effects can a lack of language proficiency have on the people who experience it, and what phenomena emerge from that?
• What strategies exist to compensate for a lack of power or a language deficit?

Axis 4: Transmission of power through language

Language is not only a tool for exercising power, it can also be a vector of it. Language elements and rhetorical devices conveyed by the media allow the worldview of the ruling classes to be normalized to the point of influencing people's perception of reality (Samuels & Comor, 2011). The impacts of this transmission, whether voluntary or not, are noticeable on very different scales. It can thus contribute to perpetuating an unbalanced conception of gender roles, even in paradoxical situations (Taylor & Ochs, 1992).

Teaching a language is also a way of conferring power. This is particularly apparent in situations of diglossia (Fishman, 1967) where there are power dynamics between groups using preferentially each of the existing languages, which can even lead to the replacement of a progressively depreciated language by a new one associated with the most powerful part of the population (Kulick, 1992). Here again, these mechanisms can be found on a smaller scale, such as that of individual language competence. Corpora collected in call centers demonstrate that learners participate in reproducing an ideology and accents (Cayla and Bhatnagar, 2015), the mastery of which can affect the chances of recruitment (Roy, 2003), and thus, access to income, which, in turn, influences the status of speakers in their linguistic community. 

This axis aims at exploring the following questions:

• What power(s) can language convey?
• By what means is power transmitted through language?
• What traces do power relations leave in language productions, for example in interaction?

Axis 5: Knowledge and/is power

The academic world is not exempt from structural inequalities related to the differentiated visibility of so-called “Northern” and “Southern” researchers. On the one hand, the decolonial movement has brought to light the “coloniality of language” (Veronelli, 2015) structuring the field of humanities and social sciences. On the other hand, critical sociolinguistics has set out to show how unequally language resources are distributed in the context of late capitalism (Duchêne & Heller, 2012), thus perpetuating and reproducing school and university inequalities (Martín Rojo, 2021). 

Scientific reflexivity leads to questions about linguistic research and its application. For instance, advances in NLP, while having enriched research with new applications, have also granted new power to potentially problematic private and public actors (reinforcement of biases, diffusion of false information...). More broadly, linguistics as a whole, through the production of discourses on language, can reinforce or break stereotypes, help or hurt minorities (Pauwels, 2003). Indeed, the question must be raised about the impacts of linguistics on the world and the role it has to play (Combs & Penfield, 2012).

This axis aims at exploring the following questions: 

• What power relationships exist between researchers or between researchers and survey participants?
• How can linguistic research contribute to the improvement of social conditions? How can we ensure that research is conducted in an ethical and non-discriminatory manner?

Bibliography

Ahearn, L. M. (2001). Language and agency. Annual review of anthropology, 30(1), 109-137.

Austin, J. C. (1962). How to do things with words. New York: OUP.

Baldo, J. V., Paulraj, S. R., Curran, B. C., & Dronkers, N. F. (2015). Impaired reasoning and problem-solving in individuals with language impairment due to aphasia or language delay. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1523.

Bourdieu, P. (2001). Langage et pouvoir symbolique, Paris, Le Seuil.

Boutet, J. (2010). Le pouvoir des mots, Paris, La Dispute.

Butler, J., (2004 [1997]). Le pouvoir des mots. Politique du performatif, Paris, Éditions Amsterdam.

Calvet, L. J. (2021). « Politique linguistique ». Langage et société, 275-280. https://doi.org/10.3917/ls.hs01.0276

Cayla, J., & Bhatnagar, K. (2017). Language and power in India’s “New Services.” In Journal of Business Research, 72, 189–198. Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.07.014

Combs, M. C., & Penfield, S. D. (2012). Language activism and language policy. The Cambridge handbook of language policy, 461-474.

Duchêne, A., & Heller, M. (eds). (2012). Language in Late Capitalism : Pride and Profit. New-York : Routledge.

Duranti, A. (2004). Agency in Language. In Alessandro Duranti (Ed.). A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology (pp. 451-474). Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Duranti, A. (2011). Linguistic anthropology: The study of language as a non-neutral medium. In Rajend Mesthrie (Ed.). The Cambridge Handbook of Sociolinguistics (pp. 28-46). Cambridge University Press.

Fishman, J. A. (1967). Bilingualism With and Without Diglossia; Diglossia With and Without Bilingualism. Journal of Social Issues, 23 (2), 29–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1967.tb00573.x

Foucault, M. (1971). L’ordre du discours. Leçon inaugurale au Collège de France prononcée le 2 décembre 1970. Paris, Gallimard.

Goffman, E. (1974). Les Rites d’interaction, Paris, Minuit.

Gosselin, L. (2010).  Les modalités en français : la validation des représentations. Rodopi.

Guespin, L., & Marcellesi, J.-B. (1986). Pour la glottopolitique. Langages, 21(83), 5‑34. https://doi.org/10.3406/lgge.1986.2493

Keel, S., & Mondada, L. (2017). The micro-politics of sequential organization: Contributions from conversation analysis and ethnomethodology. Journal of Language and Politics, 16(1), 1-19.

Kleiber, G. (1984). Dénomination et relations dénominatives. Langages, 19(76), 77-94.

Koltko-Rivera, M. E. (2004). The Psychology of Worldviews. Review of General Psychology, 8(1), 3–58. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.8.1.3 

Kulick, D. (1992). Language shift and cultural reproduction: Socialization, self, and syncretism in  a Papua New Guinean village. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Martín Rojo, L. (2021). Hegemonies and inequalities in academia, International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 267-268, p.169-192.

Mikolov, T., Chen, K., Corrado, G., & Dean, J. (2013). Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. arXiv preprint arXiv:1301.3781.

Mondada, L., & Keel, S. (Eds.). (2017). Participation et asymétries dans l’interaction institutionnelle. L’Harmattan.

Pauwels, A. (2003). Linguistic sexism and feminist linguistic activism. The handbook of language and gender, 550-570.

Piccoli, V., & Traverso, V. (2020). Quels mots pour dire les mots de l’autre ? Les désignations d’émotions et leur traduction dans les interactions en santé mentale. Rhizome, 75-76, 77-85. https://doi.org/10.3917/rhiz.075.0077 

Roy, S. (2003). Bilingualism and Standardization in a Canadian Call Center: Challenges for a Linguistic Minority Community. In Bayley, R. & Schecter, S. R. (Eds.). Language Socialization in Bilingual and Multilingual Societies (pp. 269-286). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Samuels, W. J., & Comor, E. A. (2011). Political Language: The Political Economy of Knowledge. In Media, Structures, and Power: The Robert E. Babe Collection (pp. 397–416). University of Toronto Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3138/9781442686434.30

Scott, J. C. (2009). La domination et les arts de la résistance. Fragments du discours subalterne. Éditions Amsterdam.

St Clair, M. C., Pickles, A., Durkin, K., & Conti-Ramsden, G. (2011). A longitudinal study of behavioral, emotional and social difficulties in individuals with a history of specific language impairment (SLI). Journal of Communication Disorders, 44(2), 186-199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2010.09.004

Stivers, T. (2012). Language Socialization in Children’s Medical Encounters. In Duranti, A, Ochs, E. & Schieffelin, B. (Eds.). The Handbook of Language Socialization (pp. 247-269). Oxford : Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Taylor, C., & Ochs, E. (1992). Mothers’ role in the everyday reconstruction of “Father Knows Best.”. In  Hall, K., Bucholtz, M. & Moonwomon, B. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second Berkeley Women and Language Conference (pp. 447-463). University of California.

Thompson, B., Roberts, S. G., & Lupyan, G. (2020). Cultural influences on word meanings revealed through large-scale semantic alignment. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(10), 1029-1038.

Vendryes, J. (1968 [1921]). Le Langage, introduction linguistique à l'histoire. Albin Michel.

Veronelli Gabriela A. (2015) « Sobre la colonialidad del lenguaje », Universitas humanística, n°81, Pontífica Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá, 33-58. http://revistas.javeriana.edu.co/index.php/univhumanistica/index.

Wiese, H. (2015). “This migrants’ babble is not a German dialect!”: The interaction of standard language ideology and ‘us’/‘them’ dichotomies in the public discourse on a multiethnolect. Language in Society, 44(3), 341–368. https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00410040