CFP: CogLingDays8

The CogLing Days are the biennial conference of the Belgium Netherlands Cognitive Linguistics Association ( The 8th CogLing Days will be held at the Université catholique de Louvain in Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, on December 13th and 14th 2018 (

We welcome contributions reporting on recent research in the various strands of cognitive linguistics or other cognitively inspired usage-based approaches to language.

Abstracts must not exceed 500 words, including references, and should mention the main research question(s), methodology, data and (expected) results. Abstracts can be submitted for an oral presentation (20’ + discussion time) or a poster and will be reviewed anonymously. We also welcome theme session proposals. Please submit via Easychair You will be required to paste your abstract in the text box and to upload a pdf of your abstract. Please indicate your preference for an oral presentation or a poster.
The conference languages are English, Dutch and French.

Proposals for theme sessions (max. 500 word description + (tentative) titles and names of participants) should be submitted by 15 April 2018 to When the theme session is accepted, individual abstracts should also be submitted via Easychair by 15 May 2018.  If your abstract is part of a theme session, please add the theme session title to your paper title.

Submission deadline proposals for theme sessions: 15 April 2018

Submission deadline abstracts: 15 May 2018

Notification of acceptance: 2 July 2018

Contact: Continue reading

CFP: Failing Identities: Identification and Resistance

20-21 September 2018
University of Liège, Belgium

This conference aims to scrutinize, clarify and elaborate upon the concept of identity, which ranks among the most (ab)used concepts in the humanities since the end of the 20th century.

The popularity of the concept is, first and foremost, to be situated in the aftermath of the linguistic turn, which led to identity being conceived of as the product of discursive interpellations. This theoretical reframing of the subject constitutes the theoretical basis of multiple strands of discourse theory and analysis, and of various types of (post)poststructuralist theory.

The pervasive presence of identity as an object of study is, however, and to an even greater degree, also explained by the postmodern critique of universality and the concomitant deconstruction of the universal subject as a fiction subservient to particular (masculine, white, western, heterosexual…) interests. It is precisely this critique that drives the various forms of progressive identity politics that are so conspicuously present today.

To put it simply and provocatively: where do we go from here? This fundamental question translates into a wide range of more specific questions, such as:

  • Is what (post)structuralism calls the decentred subject a mere passive recipient of discursive interpellations, or does it resist and, if so, in which way(s)? How should this resistance be understood – as an inability or rather as a refusal to accept discursive interpellations? As a rearticulation and ‘slanting’ of a given discourse? As a form of more or less subtle and agile negotiation with hegemonic pressures? As the articulation of a counterhegemonic discourse?
  • How paradoxical and/or ambivalent are identification processes? If a seemingly official and explicit refusal often hides a more fundamental implicit identification (‘I am no racist, but…’) and vice versa (‘We are determined to tackle tax evasion’), how do both levels interact with one another and what audiences are they intended for? How can identificatory acts and utterances be construed as positioning the subject within the conflictual and dialogic contexts from which they emerged?
  • How easy is it to cancel or replace identifications? Have ‘postmodern subjects’ really become fluid and endlessly malleable in a ‘liquid modernity’ (Zygmunt Bauman), or are they tough, inert and persistent? Do they have ‘hard kernels’ and, if so, what would be the nature of these? How important is the impact of discursive sedimentation on individual subjects, cultures and societies? How do deliberate or involuntary cancellations of identifications affect the subject? Are they emancipatory or destructive – or both?
  • Does the postmodern critique of the universal subject not in fact continue to refer to a universal horizon of equality and justice? Should this critique be maintained or should it give way to a dialectical vision of the opposition between the universal and the particular?
  • Are ‘progressive identity politics’ more needed than ever or are they at risk of becoming essentialist and unbearably reductionist stances?
  • Are ‘progressive identity politics’ genuinely progressive or do they allow the researchers involved to view themselves as ‘progressive’? What makes them superior to traditional, conservative identity politics? Do they hamper attempts to unite progressive groups and efforts, uniting only ‘deplorable  antiliberal, reactionary forces, as is argued by such varied authors as Eric Hobsbawm, Terry Eagleton, Slavoj Žižek, Vivek Chibber and Mark Lilla?
  • What are relevant methodological underpinnings of research on identity and identification? Which linguistic means can be observed to index identity (as one of their multiple functions), and how can we classify them meaningfully? For example, how can such phenomena as taboo expressions, metaphors, language varieties (e.g. sociolects and slang), language contact and learner languages enhance our understanding of identity and identification? What about language policy and (official and unofficial) puristic movements?

Proposals will be judged on their ability to address theoretical issues and methodological questions, or the latter’s application to concrete cases and corpora

Since the conference is interdisciplinary in nature, we welcome proposals from the fields of literary studies, linguistics, translation studies, cultural studies, communication studies, political studies, social sciences, philosophy and history.

Abstracts (in English or French) should not exceed 300 words and be submitted along with a brief biobibliographical note (100 words max.) by 1 March 2018 at the latest to the following address: Participants will be notified by 1 May 2018.

Papers may be delivered in Dutch, English, French, German and Spanish, with discussions taking place in English and French.

Organizing committee (ULiège): Kim Andringa, Lieselotte Brems, Louis Gerrekens, Maxim Proesmans, Laurent Rasier, Erik Spinoy, Kris Steyaert, An Van linden, Patricia Willson
External: Ted Laros (Open Universiteit Nederland), Lieven Vandelanotte (UNamur)

Please check for up-to-date information.

19th International CALL Research Conference

Dear colleagues,

We hereby extend a cordial invitation to submit a proposal for our 19th International CALL Research Conference, which will be held in Bruges (Belgium) from 4 to 6 July 2018. The theme of the conference is CALL your Data.

You are invited to submit a proposal where you describe your past or current research and, more importantly, the challenges encountered and solutions found regarding the “Openness” of the data you make, use of and/or produce. Your submission should consist of a one page abstract (500 words). You should use the template provided. Deadline for submission of abstracts will be January 31st 2018.

Early-bird registration will be 340 EUR. Alex Boulton and Rose Luckin will be our keynote speakers. Updated details on the programme, venue, accommodation, registration and deadlines can be found on the conference website:

Looking forward to seeing you in Bruges,

The organizing committee.
Ann Aerts
Jozef Colpaert
Frederik Cornillie
Piet Desmet
Ine Windey

Using Corpora in Contrastive and Translation Studies (5th edition)

The Centre for English Corpus Linguistics of the University of Louvain (UCL) is organizing the fifth edition of the Using Corpora in Contrastive and Translation Studies conference series in Louvain-la-Neuve (Belgium) on 12-14 September, 2018.

UCCTS is a biennial international conference which was launched by Richard Xiao in 2008 to provide an international forum for the exploration of the theoretical and practical issues pertaining to the creation and use of corpora in contrastive and translation/interpreting studies. The 2018 edition will be dedicated to the memory of Richard, who initiated the conference series but sadly passed away in January 2016.

After almost 30 years of intensive corpus use in contrastive linguistics and translation studies, the conference aims to take stock of the advances that have been made in methodology, theory, analysis and applications, and think up new ways of moving corpus-based contrastive and translation studies forward. UCCTS2018 is meant to bring together researchers who collect, annotate, analyze corpora and/or use them to inform contrastive linguistics and translation theory and/or develop corpus-informed tools (in foreign language teaching, language testing and quality assessment, translation pedagogy, computer-aided/machine translation or other related NLP domains).

Conference website

The deadline of abstract submission is extended to  January 22nd.

Sylviane Granger & Marie-Aude Lefer

Conference Chairs

CFP: 39th International GERAS Conference

15-17 March 2018

University of Mons, Belgium

Diachronic dimensions in specialised varieties of English:

implications in communications, didactics and translation studies

As a rule, practitioners of English for Specific Purposes show little interest in diachrony and, particularly, in the past of specialised languages. Their main motivation stems from learners’ needs, and needs analyses generally place them in the present or near future rather than in the past. Conversely, a growing number of researchers in continental Europe regard specialised languages as enduring linguistic objects – e.g. specialised varieties of English (SVEs) such as medical or legal English – and exploring these SVEs’ diachronic dimensions plays an increasing part in their scientific interests. This conference invites researchers to examine the diachronic dimensions of specialised English and to explore their various facets.

One first group of questions may bear on the communicational stakes of the subject. Languages aptly serve specialised communication in synchronic conditions, but what are the impacts of diachronic distantiation on comprehension and interpretation? Learners frequently engage in documentary research and they consult texts that may belong in temporal settings lying outside their immediate learning time sphere. Do they have to be made aware of the evolutions in terms, discourse, genres, institutional reference, and of the influence of history on their specialised communities? These questions expand further if the history of SVEs comes into

consideration and if we wonder about their origins. Training learners to become erudite in specialised languages is clearly not an option; yet, totally ignoring the

diachronic dimension of SVEs may not be an adequate posture when it comes to training qualified teachers of English irrespective of their specialised domains.

A second set of questions flows from answers given to the first. If some scientific investment in diachrony makes sense for some SVEs, how can we design

learning/teaching strategies that meet the requirements of the “didactic transposition” put forward by Yves Chevallard (1985: 20)? The aim of the didactic transposition is to produce “knowledge for learners” from “scholars’ knowledge” and the challenge here is to introduce the diachronic dimension into the process. Motivation concerns are also a major issue if learners are invited to devote some time and effort to long-term aspects instead of engaging fully in hic and nunclanguage priorities.

The third group of interrogations concerns translation issues. Culture has long been a major object of research in translation studies (often contrasting “natural” with

“exotic” translations), but diachrony seems to have attracted limited interest. Yet, translators are often challenged by source elements that have changed in the course of time such as terminological evolutions like neologisms or changes in nomenclature; modifications in phraseology resulting from usage or imposed by competent authorities; or paradigmatic changes in the truth conditions of the world, as when one scientific theory is proved wrong and is replaced by another.

In translation studies, source-oriented translation and target-oriented translation only meet part of the translators’ dilemmas when they are confronted with diachrony. The source-oriented translator would simply keep the past elements of the source text and include them in the target text while the target-oriented translator would aim at adapting past elements to make them fit the present. Functionalist translation theories offer better strategies in these cases. Following the

skopos theory, every translation has a purpose. The source text has to be translated so as to make sense for addressees, their knowledge and their needs, in the target circumstances. In this theoretical framework, diachrony-dependent translation decisions are subject to the function of the target text. In that respect, Christiane Nord (1997) stresses that translators have to compare source texts and target texts in terms of addressees and of the medium employed, but also in terms of the place and time of reception. By comparing, translators may make translation decisions which largely determine the target text. Functionalists have duly addressed the issue of time difference between source and target texts, but diachrony is a transversal phenomenon in translation because it is inherent in linguistic evolutions, whether in languages for general or specialised purposes. In that context, it would be of interest to study the evolutions in the translation of neologisms, of theory-constitutive metaphorical terms – their evolutions are often marked by scientific discoveries in the course of time. Other relevant prospective questions may include the translation of specialised phraseologies where parallel corpus analyses highlight diachronic markers.



Chevallard, Yves. 1985. La transposition didactique : du savoir savant au savoir enseigné. Grenoble: La Pensée Sauvage.

Nord, Christiane. 1997. Translating as a Purposeful Activity: Functionalist Approaches Explained. Manchester, UK: St Jerome.


Submission format

Languages: French or English

Number of words: 300

EXTENDED Deadline: 20 January 2018

Forward to:


Light verb constructions in Germanic languages

17-18 November 2017, Université Saint-Louis, Bruxelles

Deadline extension for submission of abstracts: 30 July 2017

Aims and scope

The German term “Funktionsverbgefüge” (‘light verb construction’; LVC) designates a combination of a noun phrase (with or without a preposition) with a light verb. The nominal and the verbal constituents build a semantic unit, e.g. German zur Entscheidung kommen, in Verbindung setzen, English to make a decision, to take a look and Dutch in aanmerking komen, ter beschikking staan. LVCs constitute an interesting research topic which can be studied from different perspectives. They can express different aspectual dimensions (causative, durative, inchoative, etc.), are more or less suitable for passivization and sometimes fill a semantic gap. Interesting research issues include their definition, the delimitation criteria – for instance between collocations and LVCs – as well as the typology of their constituents (preposition, article, nominal constituent and light verb). LVCs are also in competition with simple verbs and the question arises whether both ways of expression are interchangeable and semantically identical. From a more applied perspective, LVCs constitute a great challenge for foreign language learners. More specifically, the selection of a specific light verb, which can be among others a posture or placement verb like German stehen, setzen, versetzen, etc., is far from easy for learners. In spite of similarities between Germanic languages like German, Dutch and English, there are several differences in the formation and the use of these constructions. This makes a comparison of LVCs within Germanic and other languages another interesting issue.

The aim of this conference is to bring together researchers who are interested in the study of LVCs from different perspectives. We welcome submissions dealing with issues such as the following (but not exclusively):

  • criteria for the delimitation between LVCs and collocations
  • the syntactic structure of LVCs/Typology of their constituents
  • posture and placement verbs in LVCs
  • the semantics of prepositions in LVCs
  • LVCs vs. simple verbs
  • aspectual differences
  • comparison of LVCs between Germanic languages and/or other languages

Abstract submission 

Submissions are welcome for 25-minute oral presentations (including 5 minutes for questions) and posters. Conference languages: German and English. Abstracts of no more than 500 words (+ references) can be sent by email to until 30 July 2017.

Please include the following information in the main body of your email: author’s name, affiliation, email address, presentation title and preferred mode of presentation (oral presentation or poster). Notification of acceptance will be sent on 20 August 2017. Continue reading

Morphology Days 2017 – First Call for Papers

November 23-24, 2017

Université catholique de Louvain (Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium)

Morphology Days is a (nearly) biennial international meeting which deals with morphology within different frameworks and in various perspectives. Previous successful editions of this conference have taken place in Leuven (2015), Leeuwarden (2013), Leiden (2012), Nijmegen (2011), Luik (2009) and Amsterdam (2007).

The next edition of the conference will take place at the Université catholique de Louvain (Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium) on November 23-24, 2017.

We invite papers dealing with issues in morphology for a presentation in the main sessions of the conference.

Keynote speakers
Hélène Giraudo (Université de Toulouse)
Laura Michaelis (University of Colorado at Boulder)
Freek Van de Velde (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven)

Abstract submission
We invite abstracts in English (500 words maximum, excluding bibliography). Each abstract will be reviewed anonymously by the scientific committee.
Abstract submission:

Important dates
Deadline for abstract submission: June 1, 2017
Notification of decision: September 1, 2017
Program available: September 15, 2017

Organizing Committee
Philippe Hiligsmann (Université catholique de Louvain)
Kristel Van Goethem (F.R.S.- FNRS & Université catholique de Louvain)
Laurent Rasier (Université de Liège)
Nikos Koutsoukos (Université catholique de Louvain)
Isa Hendrikx (Université catholique de Louvain)
Camille Spinhayer (F.R.S.- FNRS & Université catholique de Louvain)

Scientific committee
Dany Amiot (Université de Lille)
Jenny Audring (Universiteit Leiden)
Geert Booij (Universiteit Leiden)
Marie-Aude Lefer (Université catholique de Louvain)
Torsten Leuschner (Universiteit Gent)
Daniela Marzo (Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München)
Matthias Hüning (Freie Universität Berlin)
Joachim Sabel (Université catholique de Louvain)
Barbara Schlücker (Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn)
Ton van der Wouden (Meertens Instituut & Leiden University)

Kristel Van Goethem:

Journée linguistique 2017

Nouvelle date limite pour la soumission : 31 mars 2017

Comme chaque année, le CBL (Cercle Belge de Linguistique) organise une journée linguistique. Cette année la conférence aura lieu le vendredi 5 mai 2017 à la Faculté de Lettres et Philosophie de l’Université d’Anvers. Toutes les activités (communications et déjeuner) auront lieu dans le bâtiment D (entrée par le coin de Grote Kauwenberg et Vekestraat ou par Grote Kauwenberg).


Les communications (20’ de présentation + 10’ de discussion) peuvent traiter d’un sujet linguistique quelconque et peuvent se faire dans une des trois langues nationales (néerlandais, français, allemande) ou en anglais. Les propositions (max. 500 mots, sans références) doivent indiquer clairement le sujet, les objectifs, les données et la méthode utilisées ainsi que les résultats (provisoires). Toutes les propositions (avec le nom et l’affiliation des auteurs) peuvent être envoyées à Jessica Van de Weerd ( avec Patrick Dendale en cc. (, jusqu’au vendredi 31 mars 2017. Avant le 14 avril 2017 vous serez mis au courant de l’acceptation de votre proposition.


La participation à la journée linguistique est gratuite pour les membres ainsi que pour les non-membres. Ceux qui veulent faire une communication doivent être membres (c’est-à-dire ceux qui ont rempli la fiche d’adhésion et payé la cotisation (€ 20 ou € 40 pour ceux qui veulent obtenir le dernier volume du Belgian Journal of Linguistics) pour l’année 2017).


Comme l’année passée, cette année il y aura également un prix pour la meilleure présentation par un doctorant. Si vous désirez participer, vous devez le mentionner lors de la soumission de votre proposition.

Dates importantes:

  • 24 mars 2017: date limite pour la soumission – nouvelle date : 31 mars 2017
  • 14 avril 2017: confirmation d’acceptation
  • 28 avril 2017: date limite pour l’inscription pour le déjeuner
  • 5 mai 2017: Journée Linguistique

Organisation: Jessica Van de Weerd et Patrick Dendale

English spoken: The position of English in Brussels

May 30, 2017

Université Saint-Louis, Brussels, Belgium



Located in a Germanic dialectal area as attested by all historical toponyms, Brussels has known over the centuries an increasing influence of French that culminated in the 19th century when French became de facto the language of the newly funded Belgian state. That state of affairs discriminated against speakers of Dutch dialects, which led to claims for linguistic equality that is still being pursued through the reforms of the Belgian State. Since 1989, Brussels is officially bilingual (French-Dutch). However this status does not reflect the linguistic diversity of the capital city where over 100 languages are spoken according to the latest “Taalbarometer” (Janssens 2013) nor the influence of English that is the second best known language after French.

The presence of English as a world language is well documented in metropolises but it may have found in Brussels a very fertile ground due to the presence of EU- and international institutions but also due to its increasing instrumental value as a lingua franca between French- and Dutch-speaking Belgians.

Call for Papers

Yet, the position of English in Brussels is under-documented and the first aim of this research day is to offer a better overview of the prevalence and functions of English in Brussels. More specifically, the following questions among many others could be discussed:

  • In what domains – for instance business, advertisement, (higher) education, the media… – is English used in Brussels?
  • Is the use of English widespread or restricted to specific geographical areas?
  • Where and how is English visible in Brussels? How prevalent is it in the linguistic landscape? What is its share in the local media?
  • Among which groups is it used? Is it the prerogative of highly educated expats or is it reaching other parts of the population such as recent migrants? Could it become an intra-national lingua franca between Dutch- and French-speakers?
  • What are the attitudes towards English? Is it welcome as a prestige marker or a useful neutral lingua franca or is it resented as a foreign influence?
  • What are the characteristics of the English spoken in Brussels? Is it a foreign language relying on British or American norms or is it turning into a second language with local features as may be the case in EU institutions and their ‘Euro-Speak’? Could the recent Brexit influence the future of English in Brussels?

The research day is primarily intended to facilitate cross-disciplinary discussions as a starting point for a large scale research project on English in Brussels.

Proposals of 400 words (+ references) for 20-minute papers (+ 10 minutes discussion) are invited by March 31, 2017 through Easy Abstracts (

Further Information

Languages of the research day: Dutch, English, French with written support in one of the other two languages.

Participation is free but enrolment is compulsory.

Organisers: Emmanuelle Labeau (Aston University, Birmingham, UK) and Rudi Janssens (Vrije Universiteit Brussel, B)

With the support of SESLA (Université Saint-Louis, Bruxelles), CLaRA (Aston University), BRIO, Brussels Studies Institute.

Call for papers Translation in Transition 3

After successful editions in Copenhagen in 2014 and Germersheim in 2015, we are pleased to announce that the third Translation in Transition Conference will be held on July 13-14, 2017 at the department of Translation, Interpreting and Communication of Ghent University (Belgium).
The ongoing digitalisation of our world has caused translation to transition from a mostly manual task to a semi- or even fully automated task. Translation research has gone through a comparable transition, with advanced research methods and statistics allowing researchers to study the translation process and product more thoroughly than ever, thereby bridging the gap between related fields as corpus linguistics, computational linguistics, psycholinguistics and bilingualism studies. Within this rapidly evolving field, the traditional dividing line between translation as written text production and interpreting as oral text production has been blurred and there are now numerous areas of research and methodological frameworks that are common to both Translation and Interpreting Studies (TIS). For instance, Translation Studies in recent years has taken an interest in the cognitive processes underlying translation, a field that was previously mainly occupied by interpreting scholars. On the other hand, Interpreting Studies, inspired by developments in translation research, has recently undergone an empirical turn with the compilation of interpreting corpora and a renewed focus on interpreting as a product. Despite these obvious advances in the field, many empirical and theoretical challenges remain: how, for instance, do written translation and interpreting relate to each other, taken both from a product and a process point of view? What are similarities and differences between translation and interpreting, what do these reveal about the nature of these translation modes and how do they inform translation theories? Which theories are available to interpret empirical findings consistently and coherently? How would an empirical theory of translation and interpreting look like? And what about other translation modes, such as audiovisual translation and localisation: how do these relate empirically to written translation and interpreting? Finally, how do technological advances (such as CAT or post-editing) shape the translational product and process? By acknowledging the recent changes in both translation and interpreting research, TT3 takes a step to overcome these challenges.