The stereotypes envisaged in this paper serve as a starting point for a research protocol aimed at corroborating the reality, in French languaculture, of the cultural value of stance-taking. The protocol adopted here is part of a research paradigm called applied ethnolinguistics, elaborated for use with and by foreign language students whose linguistic competence is sufficiently advanced to enable them to use their language resources to discover, through essentially (but not uniquely) linguistic means, the cultural values typically associated with the languaculture they study. Since the posited values are hypothetical, corroboration will be required. A specific protocol (the one illustrated here) has been set aside for this purpose. The cultural value of stance-taking will be presented in the form of a pedagogical script expressed in minimal French, a descriptive tool based on the French version of the natural semantic metalanguage. Precautions are taken to ensure that end-users of such scenarios are aware that they are dealing with generalisations (which are unavoidable as languacultures are never homogeneous).

This paper argues against the reification of shame and the use of Anglocentric jargon to explain what it entails. It shows how the Natural Semantic Metalanguage can be used to define shame and set it apart from related concepts in Australian Aboriginal English and in Bislama, an English creole spoken in Vanuatu.

Few Western scholars are likely to be aware that behind the noun linguoculturology and the adjective linguoculturological lie realities they may not be entirely familiar with. Most will no doubt unhesitatingly assume that the labels in question are no more than a different way of referring to what, in Western Europe, the Americas, and Australia / New Zealand, is called cultural linguistics. Yet, what we are witnessing here is anything but terminological variation. It is terminological indifference of a kind that is common in most areas of scholarly activity, not in the least among linguists, many of whom use identical terms for different purposes, and different terms for identical purposes, thereby stifling progress instead of inviting dialogue, and promoting indifference rather than engaging in collaborative efforts. Mizin and Korostenski (2019) take the translators of two recent papers to task for the kind of terminological indifference referred to above. Both Sharifian (2015) and Peeters (2017) were originally written in English and then translated into Russian to draw the attention of post-Soviet scientists to developments in cultural linguistics in the Western world. I revisit each of these texts, before reaching the conclusion that we need to increase awareness in both directions. The ongoing translation of important programmatic texts from English into Russian and vice versa is crucial, and so is the publication of introductory materials, critical assessments, and terminological dictionaries. They will allow Western linguists to further familiarize themselves with the theoretical underpinnings and empirical findings of linguoculturology, and help post-Soviet science transcend the geographic and ideological area to which it is still largely confined. The publication, in different issues of the 2020 volume of this journal, of revised versions of the four introductory lectures on the Natural Semantic Metalanguage approach I had the pleasure of delivering at Novosibirsk State University in June 2019 will hopefully help achieve some of the cross-fertilization contemporary cultural linguistics so badly needs.

The association between the politician Jean-Marie Le Pen (JMLP) and a form of the subjunctive imperfect/-IS/ is solidly anchored in the French linguistic imagination. This paper examines how, over a period of 33 years, from 1985 to 2017, various commentators in France (and occasionally in other French-speaking countries) have dealt with the topic. It identifies the main themes addressed in comments found in books, journals, magazines, newspapers, on radio and TV, and on the Internet. The paper will then allege that, in light of the near-absence of IS in dozens of pre-2015 JMLP speeches, the JMLP similar to IS association seems to be baseless, which is confirmation of the idea that some parts of a speech community's linguistic imaginary may be entirely. imagined.

This introductory chapter to the second of three volumes celebrating the career of Griffith University academic Cliff Goddard recaps the fundamentals of the Natural Semantic Metalanguage (NSM) approach, which is explicitly adopted by all contributors to this volume (Sect. 1.2), then contextualizes and introduces the individual papers (Sects. 1.3 and 1.4).

The year 2018 was a significant one for French phraseology studies, a phrase used here to refer to work devoted to phraseologisms in French and/or published under the auspices of the crème de la crème of phraseology studies in France. This is the second volume to be co-edited by Olivier Soutet, Inès Sfar, and Salah Mejri, the first being La Phraséologie: théorie et applications (Paris: Honoré Champion, 2018). In the same year, Mejri was honoured with a festschrift (La Phraséologie entre fixité et congruence, ed. by Sfar and Pierre-André Buvet, Louvain-la-Neuve: Academia–L’Harmattan, 2018)), co-ordinated two journal issues, one on his own (‘La Phraséologie française’ (= special issue of Le Français moderne, 86.1)), and the other with Anna Krzyżanowska (‘La Phraséologie française: sens, co-textes, contextes’ (= special issue of Lublin Studies in Modern Languages and Literatures, 42.4)), and contributed to a third (‘Phraséologie et pragmatique’, ed. by Maurice Kauffer and Yvon Keromnes (= special issue of Verbum, 40.1)). As indicated by its title, the focus of the volume under review is on phraseology and discourse, two distinct areas, each with their own methodologies, which are brought to bear on one another, thus opening new perspectives for research in both. Whereas some contributors highlight the role of phraseologisms in the articulation of discourse, others approach discourse as the setting in which phraseologisms are contextualized. In the latter case, the encounter between discourse and phraseologisms results in interaction that goes in one of two opposite directions: either a phraseologism is manipulated to various degrees when embedded in discourse, or the latter is moulded to a greater or lesser extent to allow for optimal integration of a phraseologism. The various scenarios are illustrated in thirty chapters written in French, English, German, or Spanish, canvassing data from a range of languages, including the above as well as Arabic, Swedish, Bulgarian, Romanian, Russian, and Irish. Seven chapters are directly relevant to the broad area of French studies, two of which are contrastive in nature: Radostina Zaharieva and Stefana Kaldieva-Zaharieva rely on French, Bulgarian, and Romanian in their examination of fixedness and variability, two phraseological features they consider to be diametrically opposed and intimately linked at the same time; Sameh Yaïche and colleagues investigate how native and non-native French speakers approach fixed expressions in a memorization task. Two other studies deal with proverbial sayings and proverbs: whereas Anissa Zrigue shows the multiple ways in which the former are anchored in discourse, Asma Mejri focuses on the manipulation (défigement) of the latter. The remaining contributions address largely unrelated topics. Lucia Rosenbaum Franková identifies the metaphorical source domains that appear in a corpus of press articles on economics and finance, before drawing particular attention to ontological and orientational metaphors. Wojciech Prażuch assesses the extent to which fixed expressions can be used as a defining feature of langue de bois. Cristelle Cavalla and Julie Sorba undertake a diachronic study of verb–noun collocations with the help of a literary corpus (Frantext) and a twenty-first-century journalism database (EmoBase). There is clearly a wealth of information in this volume, which deserves a place on the shelves of every phraseologist.

In this introduction to the volume, the editor sets the scene for what follows, justifying the choice of label (ethnopsychological personhood construct or EPC) for the soul-, heart-, and mind-like constructs canvassed by the four contributors. He then addresses the perennial problem of Anglocentrism and reification of EPCs in scholarly discourse, where English continues to set the tone and its constructs continue to be used as yardsticks in the description of cultural diversity, thereby elevating the English language to a status it does not deserve, no matter how important it may be on a world scale. Use of the Natural Semantic Metalanguage (NSM) is put forward as a way out of the problem. NSM is introduced, with specific reference to semantic primes, semantic molecules, and semantic templates. In addition, to demonstrate the famous NSM motto that "every explication is an experiment", the author reconstructs the various stages that explications of the English EPC mind have gone through since the first attempt was made in the late 1980s.

Apart from a general presentation, the usual list of the recipient’s publications, and a less usual — but very useful — index, this festschrift dedicated to Peter Blumenthal contains eighteen articles spread over three unequal parts that closely reflect the volume’s subtitle. The first part, ‘Dimension lexicale’, incorporates not only lexical but also phraseological work. Anke Grutschus and Ludwig Fesenmeier analyse the lexicographical treatment of French ‘bilan’ and its Italian, Spanish, and German counterparts; these are words that often surface towards the end of Blumenthal’s writings. Using the recipient’s widely known concept of ‘lexical (or combinatory) profile’, Maria Iliescu studies collocations and context to pinpoint the distinctive features of French ‘peur’ and ‘crainte’, and matching words in Romanian. Other lexical profile studies include Iva Novakova’s chapter on jealousy-related words in five European languages and, in a different part of the book, Magdalena Augustyn and Francis Grossmann’s study on French words for anger. Georges Kleiber’s contribution signals the start of the phraseological component of the first part; it deals with the discourse marker ‘comme on dit’ and its use in combination with proverbs and other similar forms of language. Jean-René Klein and Béatrice Lamiroy, meanwhile, call for greater awareness of variation and change within varieties of French, with special reference to idiomatic phrases. Charlotte Schapira probes the idiomatic phrase ‘tournure d’esprit’, whereas Bernd Spillner looks at scientific phraseology, vulgarization, and journalistic style in written press articles with a focus on economics. The second part of the volume, ‘Dimension syntaxique’, opens with Sascha Diwersy and Jacques François’s study of causative constructions involving thirty different verbs, with special reference to ‘engager’, ‘entraîner’, ‘exposer’, and ‘forcer’. Danielle Leeman then announces a solution to the problem of the use of prepositions introducing names of countries, but regrettably fails to deliver. Contrastive and diachronic linguistics are represented as well: while Sandra Lhafi studies the impact of auxiliary choice on Spanish translations of the pluperfect, Yuji Kawaguchi comments on the progression of the grammaticalization of French negation. In the third part, ‘Dimension sémantique’, Gaston Gross undertakes a holistic description of the multiple ways in which consequence is expressed in French. Joël Éline continues Oswald Ducrot’s reflections on the role played in discourse by the argumentative markers ‘donc’ and ‘pourtant’. Variatio delectat, the main title of Christian Schmitt’s article on French and German child language that concludes the festschrift, could have been the title of the entire volume. Instead, the editors have chosen one that closely reflects the scholarly interests of the recipient, knowing full well that the wide-ranging contents of the various chapters somewhat betray the thematic cohesion it alludes to (which is not at all unexpected in the case of a festschrift). All in all, though, this mostly very handsomely presented publication is a fitting celebration of Blumenthal’s lasting impact on the discipline of Romance linguistics.

Les stéréotypes envisagés dans cet article servent de point de départ à une démarche visant à corroborer la réalité, dans la langue-culture française, de la valeur culturelle de la prise de position. La démarche adoptée relève de l’ethnolinguistique appliquée, un ensemble de protocoles conçu à l’intention d’étudiants en langues étrangères dont la compétence linguistique est suffisamment avancée pour qu’ils puissent utiliser leurs ressources langagières afin de découvrir, par des moyens essentiellement (mais pas uniquement) linguistiques, des valeurs culturelles typiquement associées à la langue-culture étudiée. Les valeurs postulées étant hypothétiques, une corroboration sera indispensable. Un protocole particulier (celui qui est illustré ici) est prévu à cet effet. La valeur culturelle de la prise de position sera présentée sous forme d’un scénario pédagogique exprimé en français minimal, outil descriptif basé sur la version française de la métalangue sémantique naturelle. Des précautions sont prises afin de prévenir le destinataire de scénarios de ce type qu’il s’agit de généralisations (inévitables dans la mesure où les langues-cultures ne sont jamais homogènes).

About the substitution of the voiceless post-alveolar affricate among Igala speakers of English _ Cognate object constructions in Degema _ La multifonctionalité des conjonctions

Preview this article: APPLIED ETHNOLINGUISTICS is cultural linguistics, but is it CULTURAL LINGUISTICS?, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ijolc.3.2.01pee-1.gif

Apart from the editors’ co-authored introduction (pp. 1–18), Baider and Cislaru’s volume on linguistic approaches to emotions in context contains fourteen papers spread out over four parts devoted respectively to “Emotion, philosophy and language” (two papers, pp. 19–69), “Expressing and interpreting emotion” (six papers, pp. 71–212), “Doing emotion: prosody” (three papers, pp. 213–276) and “Pragmatic use of emotion” (three papers, pp. 277–346). Not all contributions are of equal interest to cross-cultural researchers; this review will therefore privilege those papers that are either resolutely cross-cultural or at least contain data or insights that may be of interest to the cross-cultural scholar. In Part I, Vida Vukoja looks at passion, which she describes as “a forgotten feeling” (39–69). A specialist of Croatian Church Slavonic (CCS), a liturgical language mainly used in medieval (twelfth to sixteenth century) Croatia, the author argues that the term emotion, which is often taken to be a conceptual universal and, as such, is pervasively used in contemporary scholarship (including this book review), is in fact anything but universal. It is not particularly adequate for the analysis of CCS words linked to “human mental-sentient dynamics”, for which the Latin labels passio and affectus provide a much better fit. Passio and affectus not being universal labels either, Vukoja takes a leaf out of the book of NSM (natural semantic metalanguage) scholarship and suggests that the best way to account for all “mental-sentient phenomena”, and for the similarities and differences between the concepts of “emotion”, “passio” and “affectus”, is in terms of the semantically unanalysable and truly universal concept FEEL, which is lexicalized, one way or the other, in all the languages of the world (through verbs such as feel, sentir, rasa, huu.sùk in English, French, Malay and Lao, through nouns such as niferash in Ifaluk, etc.). Part II opens with Cliff Goddard’s impressive paper on “disgust” and related concepts, mainly in English, but with some remarks on French, German, Polish and Yankunytjatjara. Goddard is the second most influential advocate of the

The potential misunderstandings or communicative failures that occasionally arise in interactions between speakers whose primary languaculture is different may be due to cultural differences that go unnoticed. In this kind of situations, even more so when they are bound to recur, it will pay off for the speakers to familiarise themselves with the main cultural values in their speech partner’s languaculture – or at least for one of them to make an effort going in that direction. But this is easier said than done. How does one become familiar with something as intangible as a set of values? In this paper, we suggest a number of learning strategies for “foreign” values in a foreign classroom setting; the intelligent exploitation of selected resources that are part of the language taught, the analysis of certain communicative behaviours and the observation of carefully chosen salient features of a society provide language teachers with the means to equip their students with relevant cultural knowledge. Applied ethnolinguistics is the set of pathways allowing students who have reached a relatively advanced competency level in their chosen foreign language to gain a clearer understanding of the language-culture nexus and of the cultural values that tend to be associated with particular languacultures.