In communication theory, pragmalinguistics and discourse analysis, words as metacommunication, metadiscourse and metalanguage are often used with common or similar meanings, though each of them should have its own particular meaning on a scientific context. However, a clear distinction between their meanings and usability is difficult to accomplish since the corresponding notional scope concerns related, consubstantial or interferential realities that lie beyond communication, discourse or language. Assuming the established premise of a second functional language, in addition to a primary language which relates to extralinguistic reality, which is intended as a primary language, but operates with primary language means, is reasonably to accept that metacommunication is a secondary communication about communication itself, specifically about the intersubjective exchange produced in connection with a certain reality in a framework that includes, besides the discourse’s protagonists, external factors (natural and social) as well. On the other hand, verbal communication as an essential function of language and its finality, succeeding language’s faculty ontologically and deriving from it, may be the subject of metacommunication (verbal), made as a similar tool to metalanguage. Although communication area also includes non-verbal means (gestures, mimicry, clothing etc), metacommunication, that allows interpreting or commenting verbal/nonverbal signs, cannot materialize but through metalinguistic function, that is specific for verbal communication hypostasis.
Along with enunciation’s theory refining and an increasing interest from specialists for a well-functioning of communication’s components, a distinction between discourse and metadiscourse, on one hand, and in other respects, between communication and metacommunication have been attempted, using the model stated by the classical (established) relation language – metalanguage (Hjelmslev) or lingustic – metalinguistic (R. Barthes).
In this regards, metadiscourse comprises all the means used by the speakers to comment their own enunciation or to confirm or reformulate the interlocutor’s enunciation. According to D. Maingueneau, the metadiscourse,(as well as) along with the actual discourse illustrates the enunciating heterogeneity, a characteristic that involves constant evaluation, commenting or reformulation of their own or interlocutor’s discourse. Such marking means, reflexive or subjective, used to establish the relation between the speaker and their own discourse (narrative, descriptive or argumentative) may arise as investigating themes for this conference.
On the other side, according to literature’s science, alongside with G. Genette’s ideas, the term (and concept) of metatext which is designated to comment upon a text and it is used sometimes in free variation with metadiscourse, has been established in the last few decades. Although these two views belong to different branches of science, our conference encourages debates and
analysis that may yield an information exchange among those specialists concerned with the investigation of language and literature from the perspective of interdisciplinary topics.
Working groups DCVL 2016
- “Beyond the” discourse; manifestations and functions of metadiscourse
- “Beyond the” text; authorial metatext or the author’s comment upon their own creation
Communication Languages: Romanian, French, English, Spanish, Italian, German.
DCVL studies will be published by a prestigious publishing house or in a review indexed in BDI.
Participation fee is to be paid before July 1st, 2016 into an account which will be communicated at a later date, includes: communication access, portfolio, attendance certificate, coffee breaks, DCVL studies’ publication in a ISBN volume.
- 250 RON (participation fee and volume publication)
- €100 or RON equivalent at latest exchange rate, (study volume publication, no participation).
Transportation, board and lodging are participants’ responsibility.
Contact: Alina Nacu, Georgiana Diaconita