{"id":468,"date":"2017-01-05T13:02:59","date_gmt":"2017-01-05T12:02:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/site.uit.no\/acqva\/?page_id=468"},"modified":"2023-03-28T14:23:28","modified_gmt":"2023-03-28T12:23:28","slug":"workshop-bidialectalism","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/site.uit.no\/acqva\/events\/acqva-workshops\/workshop-bidialectalism\/","title":{"rendered":"Workshop: Bidialectalism"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n
\n
<\/div>\n
\n

Structural and Developmental Aspects of Bidialectalism<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n

When:<\/span>\u00a0<\/strong>October 25th<\/sup>\u201326th<\/sup>, 2017
\nWhere: <\/strong><\/span>Troms\u00f8, Norway<\/p>\n

Program<\/a><\/strong><\/h3>\n

Registration<\/a><\/p>\n

Troms\u00f8: Travel and Accommodation<\/a>
\nCall for papers (closed)<\/span><\/a>
\nContact<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

The AcqVA research group (Acquisition, Variation and Attrition)<\/a> at University of Troms\u00f8 \u2013 The Arctic University of Norway (UiT)<\/a> and the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)<\/a> is pleased to announce the workshop Structural and Developmental Aspects of Bidialectalism<\/em><\/strong>, to be held in Troms\u00f8 October 25th-26th, 2017. The aim of the workshop is to bring together researchers who work on structural and developmental aspects of bidialectalism broadly understood as \u2018bilingualism involving closely related linguistic varieties\u2019.<\/p>\n

Keynote speakers:<\/span>
\nProfessor Lisa Green<\/a>, University of Massachusetts
\nProfessor Leonie Cornips<\/a>, Meertens Institute
\nProfessor Raphael Berthele<\/a>, University of Fribourg
\nAssociate Professor Laura Wagner<\/a>, Ohio State University<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Although the focus of the workshop is not to investigate the distinction between \u2018bilingualism\u2019 and \u2018bidialectalism\u2019, we may remind ourselves about the notoriously difficult distinction between \u2018language\u2019 and \u2018dialect\u2019. A pair of distinct linguistic varieties may end up being categorized as dialects or as separate languages depending on whether one uses linguistic, historical, communicative, political or other criteria. For instance, by the communicative criterion \u201cmutual intelligibility\u201d the Mainland North Germanic varieties Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish should presumably be categorized as different dialects \u2013 which also squares with the largely common linguistic properties of the varieties \u2013 yet they are, for political and historical reasons, more commonly thought of as different languages.<\/p>\n

In turn, \u00d6vdalian, a variety of North Germanic spoken in Central Sweden, is linguistically speaking much further from Standard Swedish than Norwegian is and it is furthermore not comprehensible to the average Swede. Nevertheless the official Swedish view is, for political reasons, that \u00d6vdalian is a dialect of Swedish. In a similar vein, the two written standards of Norwegian, Bokm\u00e5l and Nynorsk, are by many considered different codified versions of the same language, although they have different historical origins and although there are linguistic differences between them similar to those found across the Mainland North Germanic varieties.<\/p>\n

What is important about situations like these is that many speakers, both individuals and groups, end up with linguistic competencies whereby they use and\/or deal with two closely related linguistic varieties on a daily basis. We wish to explore the characteristics of such situations, be it from a structural, developmental acquisition, societal or cognitive perspective.<\/p>\n

A lot of research has been done on different types of bilingual groups (second language learners, successive bilinguals, heritage speakers etc.), but there is much less research on speakers who have extensive knowledge on two or more typologically very proximate languages. Many, or even most, speakers grow up speaking a certain variety in their home and community that on one or several levels may differ from other varieties or a national standard language that is later encountered in e.g. school and media, but yet little is known about these speakers’ representations of a (mutually intelligible) closely related spoken variety. Do we find the typical phenomena of bilingualism in bidialectalism? Do we see transfer, attrition and general influence from one variety to the other in bidialectal speakers? Is bidialectalism qualitatively different from bilingualism, or is there only gradual difference, possibly measurable in terms of typological proximity?\u00a0See call for papers here.<\/a><\/p>\n

Important dates:<\/strong><\/p>\n