16-18 JUNE 2021, Budapest, Hungary<\/strong><\/h2>\nregistration date: April 15, 2021<\/strong><\/h2>\nThe authors of selected papers will be invited to publish in special issue of\u00a0<\/strong><\/em>Cognitive Linguistic Studies <\/strong>and further volumes by International publishers.<\/strong><\/em><\/h4>\n<\/h3>\n
[\/vc_column_text][vc_toggle title=”In memoriam Prof. Farzad Sharifian” style=”round” color=”black”]<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/scitope.com\/clic-2020\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/Dia2.jpg\")
<\/h1>\n
[\/vc_toggle][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n
Keynote speakers<\/strong><\/h2>\n[\/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/2″][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n
Professor Zolt\u00e1n K\u00f6vecses<\/a> | ELTE University, Hungary<\/h4>\n[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/2″][vc_toggle title=”Metaphor in Cultural Evolution” style=”arrow” color=”orange” size=”sm”]Zolt\u00e1n K\u00f6vecses
\nE\u00f6tv\u00f6s Lor\u00e1nd University
\nBudapest
\nkovecses.zoltan@btk.elte.hu<\/p>\n
Cultures emerge when prehistoric humans begin to create imagined realities (i.e., realities that
\ndo not exist objectively) (Harari, 2015). These imagined realities are constituted by abstract
\nconcepts. As we know from conceptual metaphor theory (see, e.g., Lakoff and Johnson, 1980;
\nK\u00f6vecses, 2010), abstract concepts arise from more concrete concepts via figurative ways of
\nconceptualization, such as metonymy, metaphor, and blending. With the help of the concrete
\nconcepts that denote physical reality, people around the world create a large variety of
\nimagined realities, that is, cultures. The development of these cultures through time can be
\ncalled history.
\nHow did metaphor play a role in the emergence of cultures? I use \u201cextended conceptual
\nmetaphor theory\u201d (Extended CMT) (see K\u00f6vecses, 2015, 2020) to address this issue. There
\nare a number of more specific questions that need to be answered in such an undertaking.
\nThese include: Do we have any evidence for the existence of metaphorical thinking by early
\nhumans between roughly 30000 and 100000 years ago? What was the \u201centry level\u201d of
\nmetaphorical thinking as regards the participating conceptual structures \u2013 image schemas,
\nframes or something else? What kind of metaphors were used initially \u2013 correlation or
\nresemblance metaphors, or both? Did the emerging cultures share any forms of conceptual
\nmetaphors? How can we account for the apparent diversity of metaphorical thinking in later
\nperiods, but also maybe in the initial period of the emergence of metaphorical
\nconceptualization?
\nUnfortunately, in the talk, most of these questions will remain unanswered in a definitive way.
\nI raise them and provide some framework for their discussion in order to start dealing with
\nsuch issues in a principled way.<\/p>\n
References:
\nHarari, Yuval N. 2015. Sapiens. A brief history of humankind. London: Vintage.
\nK\u00f6vecses, Zolt\u00e1n. 2010. Metaphor. A practical introduction. New York and Oxford: Oxford
\nUniversity Press.
\nK\u00f6vecses, Zolt\u00e1n. 2015. Where metaphors come from. Reconsidering context in metaphor.
\nNew York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
\nK\u00f6vecses, Zolt\u00e1n. 2020. Extended conceptual metaphor theory. Cambridge: Cambridge
\nUniversity Press.
\nLakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of
\nChicago Press.[\/vc_toggle][\/vc_column_inner][\/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/2″][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n
Professor Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk<\/a> | State University of Applied Sciences in Konin, Poland<\/h4>\n[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/2″][vc_toggle title=”Feet, Shoes , and Emotions in Cultural Conceptualizations” style=”arrow” color=”orange” size=”sm”]Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk
\nState University of Applied Sciences in Konin<\/p>\n
barbara.lewandowska.tomaszczyk@gmail.com<\/p>\n
The paper focuses on the phenomena of cultural foundations of the concepts of foot and shoes
\nand related forms in their onomasiological and semasiological perspectives. Physicality of the
\nhuman body and the processes of its conceptual embodiment as well as connected
\nemotionality on the one hand together with the contexts of cultural practices and artefacts
\ninvolving these forms on the other will be discussed and elaborated on in social cognitive
\ncontexts. Lexical forms concerning human body referring to legs and feet on the one hand as
\nwell as to shoeware on the other, are treated as broad meaning-building stimulators and
\npresented to support the constructing of culturally rich cognitive Image Schema
\nrepresentations and complex cultural conceptualizations. They emerge as a consequence of
\nthe dynamic usage models of these lexical forms in terms of accompanying emotion clusters,
\nrelated to each of the discussed concepts and relevant cultural scenarios. The framework
\nadopted for the analysis presents examples of multimodal types. Their analysis is carried out
\nin terms of interdisciplinary methodological instruments such as Cognitive Linguistic
\nconstrual and conceptualizations, relevant cultural schemas incorporating rich figurative
\nconstructions, social and historical models as well as emotion studies and corpus linguistic
\ntools, in particular usage frequency counts and collocational profiles. It is shown how the
\nrelevant cultural conceptualizations of the objects discussed come into existence as a result of
\ninteractions between members of a cultural group and are used in language and vision as
\nforms of particular prominence of the socio-cultural type.[\/vc_toggle][\/vc_column_inner][\/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/2″][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n
Professor Helen Meng<\/a> | Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong<\/h4>\n[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/2″][vc_toggle title=”From Accented Speech to Code-Switching: Developing Spoken Language Technologies Across Cultures” style=”arrow” color=”orange” size=”sm”]Helen Meng
\nChinese University of Hong Kong
\ncuhk2.hmmeng@gmail.com<\/p>\n
Spoken language offers a remarkably rich medium for human-human communication. It encodes
\ninformation through acoustics, phonetics and linguistics about what we mean, who we are, how
\nwe feel, and the context surrounding us. As Hong Kong is situated at the confluence of western
\nand Asian cultures, we observe a preponderance of Chinese-accented English speech, as well as
\nChinese-English code-switched speech. This talk presents our group\u2019s research in the
\ndevelopment of spoken language technologies for recognition of Chinese-accented English
\nspeech, aimed at achieving mispronunciation detection and diagnoses to support computer-aided
\npronunciation training for raising English language proficiency. We will also present our work
\nin text-to-speech synthesis of Chinese-English code-switched speech using monolingual corpora
\nfrom different speakers, where the modeling needs to disentangle language and speaker
\ncharacteristics in the corpora.<\/p>\n
Biography:
\nHelen Meng is Patrick Huen Wing Ming Professor of Systems Engineering and Engineering
\nManagement at The Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK). Her research interests include
\nspeech and language technologies to support multilingual and multimodal human-computer
\ninteractions, eLearning and assistive technologies, as well as big data decision analytics using
\nAI. She leads the interdisciplinary research team that received the first Theme-based Research
\nScheme Project in Artificial Intelligence in 2019 from the HKSAR Government\u2019s Research
\nGrants Council. She is Chair of the Curriculum Development in the CUHK-JC AI4Future
\nProject, which has developed the courseware for pre-tertiary AI education being taught in a
\ngrowing number of participating secondary schools across Hong Kong.
\nHelen received all her degrees from MIT. She is the Founding Director of the CUHK
\nMinistry of Education (MoE)-Microsoft Key Laboratory for Human-Centric Computing and
\nInterface Technologies (since 2005), Tsinghua-CUHK Joint Research Center for Media
\nSciences, Technologies and Systems (since 2006), and Stanley Ho Big Data Decision Analytics
\nResearch Center (since 2013). Previously, she has served as CUHK Faculty of Engineering\u2019s
\nAssociate Dean (Research), Chairman of the Department of Systems Engineering and
\nEngineering Management, Editor-in-Chief of the IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech and
\nLanguage Processing, Member of the IEEE Signal Processing Society Board of Governors,<\/p>\n
ISCA Board Member and presently member of the IEEE SPS Awards Board and ISCA
\nInternational Advisory Council. She was elected APSIPA\u2019s inaugural Distinguished Lecturer
\n2012-2013 and ISCA Distinguished Lecturer 2015-2016. Her awards include the Ministry of
\nEducation Higher Education Outstanding Scientific Research Output Award 2009, Microsoft
\nResearch Outstanding Collaborator Award 2016 (1 in 32 worldwide), IBM Faculty Award 2016,
\nHKPWE Outstanding Women Professionals and Entrepreneurs Award 2017 (1 in 20 since 1999),
\nHong Kong ICT Silver Award 2018 in Smart Inclusion, 2019 IEEE SPS Leo L. Beranek
\nMeritorious Service Award and various best paper awards.
\nHelen has served in a number of government appointments, which include memberships
\nin the Steering Committee of Hong Kong\u2019s Electronic Health Record Sharing, Social Welfare
\nDepartment\u2019s Joint Committee on Information Technology for the Social Welfare Sector and
\nAdvisory Committee on financing social welfare services. She is also a member of the AI4SDGs
\nAI for Children Working Group. Helen is a Fellow of IEEE, ISCA, HKIE and HKCS.[\/vc_toggle][\/vc_column_inner][\/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/2″][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n
Professor Csaba Pl\u00e9h<\/a> | Central European University, Hungary<\/h4>\n[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/2″][vc_toggle title=”The Issue of Linguistic and Cultural Relativity” style=”arrow” color=”orange” size=”sm”]Csaba Pl\u00e9h<\/p>\n
Department of Cognitive Science
\nCentral European University
\nBudapest
\npleh.csaba@gmail.com<\/p>\n
I shall start off from three approaches to the thought\/culture relations. One is unconstrained
\nuniversalism, the other is the assumption of qualitative differences between types of thoughts
\nthat would by some interpretations correspond to patterns of culture and finally, the third
\napproach allows a multiplicity of styles of thought that can be combined in flexible ways.
\nAs empirical illustration of these assumptions I shall first characterize some proposals for
\npostulating a perceptual, cultural and contextual analyticity\/holism strategy difference that is
\nmany times related to assume East\/West cultural differences. Then I shall move on to what
\nthe issue of linguistic relativity taught us about dangers of relating typological differences,
\nand even differences in processing regarding assumed overall geographic\/cultural differences.
\nOne example is the issue of spatial orientation and language use. Strong claims were made by
\nLevison hat language determines the use of egocentric versus allocentric ori8entation.
\nHungarian, with its strongly articulated egocentric spatial marking system in noun phrases is a
\nclear candidate for the use of egocentric frames of reference. Our data, however, collected by
\nRoz\u00e1lia Iv\u00e1dy and Gabriella Felh\u0151si challenge this view. I shall argue that language, way of
\nlife, age and education all contribute to the peculiar interface of spatial orientation and
\nlanguage.
\nI shall argue on the basis of our own researches and from studies of other groups for a
\nconstrained relativity view, and for a proposal that the processing differences are not
\nabsolutes.[\/vc_toggle][\/vc_column_inner][\/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/2″][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n
Professor Hans-Georg Wolf <\/a>| University of Potsdam, Germany<\/h4>\n[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/2″][vc_toggle title=”Cultural Linguistics: Some Disciplinary and Terminological Considerations” style=”arrow” color=”orange” size=”sm”]Hans-Georg Wolf
\nThe University of Potsdam
\nhgwolf@uni-potsdam.de<\/p>\n
The success of Cultural Linguistics as a far-reaching research paradigm has been due, to a
\nvast extent, to Sharifian\u2019s (e.g., 2003, 2011, 2015, 2017a\/b) integration of previous theoretical
\nconcepts, methods, and terminologies into a unified theoretical approach. However, this
\nprocess of integration, to my mind, has not been completed. In fact, in a couple of
\npublications (Wolf, Finzel, and Latic fc.; K\u00fchmstedt and Wolf fc.), I was about to enter into a
\nterminological debate with Farzad Sharifian, when he suddenly departed. In this paper, I
\nwould like to take up and systematize this debate. Primarily, as regards theory, I will focus on
\nthe relation of Cultural Linguistics to Cognitive Sociolinguistics, and as regards terminology
\n(and methodology), on the central concept of \u2018cultural conceptualization.\u2019 By doing so, I hope
\nto solidify the paradigm of Cultural Linguistics even more and to provide further
\nterminological refinements.[\/vc_toggle][\/vc_column_inner][\/vc_row_inner][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n
Scope<\/strong><\/h2>\nCultural Linguistics is an emerging field that focuses on the interrelation between language and cultural conceptualisations. Over the last decade or so, Cultural Linguistics has witnessed tremendous growth and development in terms of theory, methodology, and application. The Cultural Linguistic framework has been applied to a range of different phenomena within and beyond language, culture, and cognition, integrating the theory and methodological tools of various disciplines, such as cognitive psychology, Complexity Science, Distributed Cognition, and anthropology.<\/span><\/p>\nCurrent research in Cultural Linguistics shows that its analytical framework can offer fruitful inquiries into research areas such as pragmatics, emotions, religion, political discourse, World Englishes, intercultural communication, and Teaching English as an International Language (TEIL). Within these domains, cultural conceptualisations manifest in the forms of cultural schemata, cultural metaphors and cultural categories.<\/span><\/p>\nThe conference welcomes presentations based on studies conducted from a Cultural Linguistic perspective, involving research into the nature of underlying cultural conceptualisations in language, the role of cultural conceptualisations in intercultural pragmatics, language development and language teaching. CLIC-2021 hopes to provide an interesting platform for researchers and academics interested in the proposed topics, detailed below:<\/span><\/p>\n[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n
TOPICS<\/strong><\/h2>\n
The authors of selected papers will be invited to publish in special issue of\u00a0<\/strong><\/em>Cognitive Linguistic Studies <\/strong>and further volumes by International publishers.<\/strong><\/em><\/h4>\n<\/h3>\n
[\/vc_column_text][vc_toggle title=”In memoriam Prof. Farzad Sharifian” style=”round” color=”black”]<\/p>\n
<\/h1>\n
[\/vc_toggle][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n
Keynote speakers<\/strong><\/h2>\n[\/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/2″][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n
Professor Zolt\u00e1n K\u00f6vecses<\/a> | ELTE University, Hungary<\/h4>\n[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/2″][vc_toggle title=”Metaphor in Cultural Evolution” style=”arrow” color=”orange” size=”sm”]Zolt\u00e1n K\u00f6vecses
\nE\u00f6tv\u00f6s Lor\u00e1nd University
\nBudapest
\nkovecses.zoltan@btk.elte.hu<\/p>\n
Cultures emerge when prehistoric humans begin to create imagined realities (i.e., realities that
\ndo not exist objectively) (Harari, 2015). These imagined realities are constituted by abstract
\nconcepts. As we know from conceptual metaphor theory (see, e.g., Lakoff and Johnson, 1980;
\nK\u00f6vecses, 2010), abstract concepts arise from more concrete concepts via figurative ways of
\nconceptualization, such as metonymy, metaphor, and blending. With the help of the concrete
\nconcepts that denote physical reality, people around the world create a large variety of
\nimagined realities, that is, cultures. The development of these cultures through time can be
\ncalled history.
\nHow did metaphor play a role in the emergence of cultures? I use \u201cextended conceptual
\nmetaphor theory\u201d (Extended CMT) (see K\u00f6vecses, 2015, 2020) to address this issue. There
\nare a number of more specific questions that need to be answered in such an undertaking.
\nThese include: Do we have any evidence for the existence of metaphorical thinking by early
\nhumans between roughly 30000 and 100000 years ago? What was the \u201centry level\u201d of
\nmetaphorical thinking as regards the participating conceptual structures \u2013 image schemas,
\nframes or something else? What kind of metaphors were used initially \u2013 correlation or
\nresemblance metaphors, or both? Did the emerging cultures share any forms of conceptual
\nmetaphors? How can we account for the apparent diversity of metaphorical thinking in later
\nperiods, but also maybe in the initial period of the emergence of metaphorical
\nconceptualization?
\nUnfortunately, in the talk, most of these questions will remain unanswered in a definitive way.
\nI raise them and provide some framework for their discussion in order to start dealing with
\nsuch issues in a principled way.<\/p>\n
References:
\nHarari, Yuval N. 2015. Sapiens. A brief history of humankind. London: Vintage.
\nK\u00f6vecses, Zolt\u00e1n. 2010. Metaphor. A practical introduction. New York and Oxford: Oxford
\nUniversity Press.
\nK\u00f6vecses, Zolt\u00e1n. 2015. Where metaphors come from. Reconsidering context in metaphor.
\nNew York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
\nK\u00f6vecses, Zolt\u00e1n. 2020. Extended conceptual metaphor theory. Cambridge: Cambridge
\nUniversity Press.
\nLakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of
\nChicago Press.[\/vc_toggle][\/vc_column_inner][\/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/2″][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n
Professor Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk<\/a> | State University of Applied Sciences in Konin, Poland<\/h4>\n[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/2″][vc_toggle title=”Feet, Shoes , and Emotions in Cultural Conceptualizations” style=”arrow” color=”orange” size=”sm”]Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk
\nState University of Applied Sciences in Konin<\/p>\n
barbara.lewandowska.tomaszczyk@gmail.com<\/p>\n
The paper focuses on the phenomena of cultural foundations of the concepts of foot and shoes
\nand related forms in their onomasiological and semasiological perspectives. Physicality of the
\nhuman body and the processes of its conceptual embodiment as well as connected
\nemotionality on the one hand together with the contexts of cultural practices and artefacts
\ninvolving these forms on the other will be discussed and elaborated on in social cognitive
\ncontexts. Lexical forms concerning human body referring to legs and feet on the one hand as
\nwell as to shoeware on the other, are treated as broad meaning-building stimulators and
\npresented to support the constructing of culturally rich cognitive Image Schema
\nrepresentations and complex cultural conceptualizations. They emerge as a consequence of
\nthe dynamic usage models of these lexical forms in terms of accompanying emotion clusters,
\nrelated to each of the discussed concepts and relevant cultural scenarios. The framework
\nadopted for the analysis presents examples of multimodal types. Their analysis is carried out
\nin terms of interdisciplinary methodological instruments such as Cognitive Linguistic
\nconstrual and conceptualizations, relevant cultural schemas incorporating rich figurative
\nconstructions, social and historical models as well as emotion studies and corpus linguistic
\ntools, in particular usage frequency counts and collocational profiles. It is shown how the
\nrelevant cultural conceptualizations of the objects discussed come into existence as a result of
\ninteractions between members of a cultural group and are used in language and vision as
\nforms of particular prominence of the socio-cultural type.[\/vc_toggle][\/vc_column_inner][\/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/2″][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n
Professor Helen Meng<\/a> | Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong<\/h4>\n[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/2″][vc_toggle title=”From Accented Speech to Code-Switching: Developing Spoken Language Technologies Across Cultures” style=”arrow” color=”orange” size=”sm”]Helen Meng
\nChinese University of Hong Kong
\ncuhk2.hmmeng@gmail.com<\/p>\n
Spoken language offers a remarkably rich medium for human-human communication. It encodes
\ninformation through acoustics, phonetics and linguistics about what we mean, who we are, how
\nwe feel, and the context surrounding us. As Hong Kong is situated at the confluence of western
\nand Asian cultures, we observe a preponderance of Chinese-accented English speech, as well as
\nChinese-English code-switched speech. This talk presents our group\u2019s research in the
\ndevelopment of spoken language technologies for recognition of Chinese-accented English
\nspeech, aimed at achieving mispronunciation detection and diagnoses to support computer-aided
\npronunciation training for raising English language proficiency. We will also present our work
\nin text-to-speech synthesis of Chinese-English code-switched speech using monolingual corpora
\nfrom different speakers, where the modeling needs to disentangle language and speaker
\ncharacteristics in the corpora.<\/p>\n
Biography:
\nHelen Meng is Patrick Huen Wing Ming Professor of Systems Engineering and Engineering
\nManagement at The Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK). Her research interests include
\nspeech and language technologies to support multilingual and multimodal human-computer
\ninteractions, eLearning and assistive technologies, as well as big data decision analytics using
\nAI. She leads the interdisciplinary research team that received the first Theme-based Research
\nScheme Project in Artificial Intelligence in 2019 from the HKSAR Government\u2019s Research
\nGrants Council. She is Chair of the Curriculum Development in the CUHK-JC AI4Future
\nProject, which has developed the courseware for pre-tertiary AI education being taught in a
\ngrowing number of participating secondary schools across Hong Kong.
\nHelen received all her degrees from MIT. She is the Founding Director of the CUHK
\nMinistry of Education (MoE)-Microsoft Key Laboratory for Human-Centric Computing and
\nInterface Technologies (since 2005), Tsinghua-CUHK Joint Research Center for Media
\nSciences, Technologies and Systems (since 2006), and Stanley Ho Big Data Decision Analytics
\nResearch Center (since 2013). Previously, she has served as CUHK Faculty of Engineering\u2019s
\nAssociate Dean (Research), Chairman of the Department of Systems Engineering and
\nEngineering Management, Editor-in-Chief of the IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech and
\nLanguage Processing, Member of the IEEE Signal Processing Society Board of Governors,<\/p>\n
ISCA Board Member and presently member of the IEEE SPS Awards Board and ISCA
\nInternational Advisory Council. She was elected APSIPA\u2019s inaugural Distinguished Lecturer
\n2012-2013 and ISCA Distinguished Lecturer 2015-2016. Her awards include the Ministry of
\nEducation Higher Education Outstanding Scientific Research Output Award 2009, Microsoft
\nResearch Outstanding Collaborator Award 2016 (1 in 32 worldwide), IBM Faculty Award 2016,
\nHKPWE Outstanding Women Professionals and Entrepreneurs Award 2017 (1 in 20 since 1999),
\nHong Kong ICT Silver Award 2018 in Smart Inclusion, 2019 IEEE SPS Leo L. Beranek
\nMeritorious Service Award and various best paper awards.
\nHelen has served in a number of government appointments, which include memberships
\nin the Steering Committee of Hong Kong\u2019s Electronic Health Record Sharing, Social Welfare
\nDepartment\u2019s Joint Committee on Information Technology for the Social Welfare Sector and
\nAdvisory Committee on financing social welfare services. She is also a member of the AI4SDGs
\nAI for Children Working Group. Helen is a Fellow of IEEE, ISCA, HKIE and HKCS.[\/vc_toggle][\/vc_column_inner][\/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/2″][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n
Professor Csaba Pl\u00e9h<\/a> | Central European University, Hungary<\/h4>\n[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/2″][vc_toggle title=”The Issue of Linguistic and Cultural Relativity” style=”arrow” color=”orange” size=”sm”]Csaba Pl\u00e9h<\/p>\n
Department of Cognitive Science
\nCentral European University
\nBudapest
\npleh.csaba@gmail.com<\/p>\n
I shall start off from three approaches to the thought\/culture relations. One is unconstrained
\nuniversalism, the other is the assumption of qualitative differences between types of thoughts
\nthat would by some interpretations correspond to patterns of culture and finally, the third
\napproach allows a multiplicity of styles of thought that can be combined in flexible ways.
\nAs empirical illustration of these assumptions I shall first characterize some proposals for
\npostulating a perceptual, cultural and contextual analyticity\/holism strategy difference that is
\nmany times related to assume East\/West cultural differences. Then I shall move on to what
\nthe issue of linguistic relativity taught us about dangers of relating typological differences,
\nand even differences in processing regarding assumed overall geographic\/cultural differences.
\nOne example is the issue of spatial orientation and language use. Strong claims were made by
\nLevison hat language determines the use of egocentric versus allocentric ori8entation.
\nHungarian, with its strongly articulated egocentric spatial marking system in noun phrases is a
\nclear candidate for the use of egocentric frames of reference. Our data, however, collected by
\nRoz\u00e1lia Iv\u00e1dy and Gabriella Felh\u0151si challenge this view. I shall argue that language, way of
\nlife, age and education all contribute to the peculiar interface of spatial orientation and
\nlanguage.
\nI shall argue on the basis of our own researches and from studies of other groups for a
\nconstrained relativity view, and for a proposal that the processing differences are not
\nabsolutes.[\/vc_toggle][\/vc_column_inner][\/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/2″][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n
Professor Hans-Georg Wolf <\/a>| University of Potsdam, Germany<\/h4>\n[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/2″][vc_toggle title=”Cultural Linguistics: Some Disciplinary and Terminological Considerations” style=”arrow” color=”orange” size=”sm”]Hans-Georg Wolf
\nThe University of Potsdam
\nhgwolf@uni-potsdam.de<\/p>\n
The success of Cultural Linguistics as a far-reaching research paradigm has been due, to a
\nvast extent, to Sharifian\u2019s (e.g., 2003, 2011, 2015, 2017a\/b) integration of previous theoretical
\nconcepts, methods, and terminologies into a unified theoretical approach. However, this
\nprocess of integration, to my mind, has not been completed. In fact, in a couple of
\npublications (Wolf, Finzel, and Latic fc.; K\u00fchmstedt and Wolf fc.), I was about to enter into a
\nterminological debate with Farzad Sharifian, when he suddenly departed. In this paper, I
\nwould like to take up and systematize this debate. Primarily, as regards theory, I will focus on
\nthe relation of Cultural Linguistics to Cognitive Sociolinguistics, and as regards terminology
\n(and methodology), on the central concept of \u2018cultural conceptualization.\u2019 By doing so, I hope
\nto solidify the paradigm of Cultural Linguistics even more and to provide further
\nterminological refinements.[\/vc_toggle][\/vc_column_inner][\/vc_row_inner][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n
Scope<\/strong><\/h2>\nCultural Linguistics is an emerging field that focuses on the interrelation between language and cultural conceptualisations. Over the last decade or so, Cultural Linguistics has witnessed tremendous growth and development in terms of theory, methodology, and application. The Cultural Linguistic framework has been applied to a range of different phenomena within and beyond language, culture, and cognition, integrating the theory and methodological tools of various disciplines, such as cognitive psychology, Complexity Science, Distributed Cognition, and anthropology.<\/span><\/p>\nCurrent research in Cultural Linguistics shows that its analytical framework can offer fruitful inquiries into research areas such as pragmatics, emotions, religion, political discourse, World Englishes, intercultural communication, and Teaching English as an International Language (TEIL). Within these domains, cultural conceptualisations manifest in the forms of cultural schemata, cultural metaphors and cultural categories.<\/span><\/p>\nThe conference welcomes presentations based on studies conducted from a Cultural Linguistic perspective, involving research into the nature of underlying cultural conceptualisations in language, the role of cultural conceptualisations in intercultural pragmatics, language development and language teaching. CLIC-2021 hopes to provide an interesting platform for researchers and academics interested in the proposed topics, detailed below:<\/span><\/p>\n[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n
TOPICS<\/strong><\/h2>\n
<\/h1>\n[\/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/2″][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n
Professor Zolt\u00e1n K\u00f6vecses<\/a> | ELTE University, Hungary<\/h4>\n[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/2″][vc_toggle title=”Metaphor in Cultural Evolution” style=”arrow” color=”orange” size=”sm”]Zolt\u00e1n K\u00f6vecses
\nE\u00f6tv\u00f6s Lor\u00e1nd University
\nBudapest
\nkovecses.zoltan@btk.elte.hu<\/p>\n
Cultures emerge when prehistoric humans begin to create imagined realities (i.e., realities that
\ndo not exist objectively) (Harari, 2015). These imagined realities are constituted by abstract
\nconcepts. As we know from conceptual metaphor theory (see, e.g., Lakoff and Johnson, 1980;
\nK\u00f6vecses, 2010), abstract concepts arise from more concrete concepts via figurative ways of
\nconceptualization, such as metonymy, metaphor, and blending. With the help of the concrete
\nconcepts that denote physical reality, people around the world create a large variety of
\nimagined realities, that is, cultures. The development of these cultures through time can be
\ncalled history.
\nHow did metaphor play a role in the emergence of cultures? I use \u201cextended conceptual
\nmetaphor theory\u201d (Extended CMT) (see K\u00f6vecses, 2015, 2020) to address this issue. There
\nare a number of more specific questions that need to be answered in such an undertaking.
\nThese include: Do we have any evidence for the existence of metaphorical thinking by early
\nhumans between roughly 30000 and 100000 years ago? What was the \u201centry level\u201d of
\nmetaphorical thinking as regards the participating conceptual structures \u2013 image schemas,
\nframes or something else? What kind of metaphors were used initially \u2013 correlation or
\nresemblance metaphors, or both? Did the emerging cultures share any forms of conceptual
\nmetaphors? How can we account for the apparent diversity of metaphorical thinking in later
\nperiods, but also maybe in the initial period of the emergence of metaphorical
\nconceptualization?
\nUnfortunately, in the talk, most of these questions will remain unanswered in a definitive way.
\nI raise them and provide some framework for their discussion in order to start dealing with
\nsuch issues in a principled way.<\/p>\n
References:
\nHarari, Yuval N. 2015. Sapiens. A brief history of humankind. London: Vintage.
\nK\u00f6vecses, Zolt\u00e1n. 2010. Metaphor. A practical introduction. New York and Oxford: Oxford
\nUniversity Press.
\nK\u00f6vecses, Zolt\u00e1n. 2015. Where metaphors come from. Reconsidering context in metaphor.
\nNew York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
\nK\u00f6vecses, Zolt\u00e1n. 2020. Extended conceptual metaphor theory. Cambridge: Cambridge
\nUniversity Press.
\nLakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of
\nChicago Press.[\/vc_toggle][\/vc_column_inner][\/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/2″][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n
Professor Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk<\/a> | State University of Applied Sciences in Konin, Poland<\/h4>\n[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/2″][vc_toggle title=”Feet, Shoes , and Emotions in Cultural Conceptualizations” style=”arrow” color=”orange” size=”sm”]Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk
\nState University of Applied Sciences in Konin<\/p>\n
barbara.lewandowska.tomaszczyk@gmail.com<\/p>\n
The paper focuses on the phenomena of cultural foundations of the concepts of foot and shoes
\nand related forms in their onomasiological and semasiological perspectives. Physicality of the
\nhuman body and the processes of its conceptual embodiment as well as connected
\nemotionality on the one hand together with the contexts of cultural practices and artefacts
\ninvolving these forms on the other will be discussed and elaborated on in social cognitive
\ncontexts. Lexical forms concerning human body referring to legs and feet on the one hand as
\nwell as to shoeware on the other, are treated as broad meaning-building stimulators and
\npresented to support the constructing of culturally rich cognitive Image Schema
\nrepresentations and complex cultural conceptualizations. They emerge as a consequence of
\nthe dynamic usage models of these lexical forms in terms of accompanying emotion clusters,
\nrelated to each of the discussed concepts and relevant cultural scenarios. The framework
\nadopted for the analysis presents examples of multimodal types. Their analysis is carried out
\nin terms of interdisciplinary methodological instruments such as Cognitive Linguistic
\nconstrual and conceptualizations, relevant cultural schemas incorporating rich figurative
\nconstructions, social and historical models as well as emotion studies and corpus linguistic
\ntools, in particular usage frequency counts and collocational profiles. It is shown how the
\nrelevant cultural conceptualizations of the objects discussed come into existence as a result of
\ninteractions between members of a cultural group and are used in language and vision as
\nforms of particular prominence of the socio-cultural type.[\/vc_toggle][\/vc_column_inner][\/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/2″][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n
Professor Helen Meng<\/a> | Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong<\/h4>\n[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/2″][vc_toggle title=”From Accented Speech to Code-Switching: Developing Spoken Language Technologies Across Cultures” style=”arrow” color=”orange” size=”sm”]Helen Meng
\nChinese University of Hong Kong
\ncuhk2.hmmeng@gmail.com<\/p>\n
Spoken language offers a remarkably rich medium for human-human communication. It encodes
\ninformation through acoustics, phonetics and linguistics about what we mean, who we are, how
\nwe feel, and the context surrounding us. As Hong Kong is situated at the confluence of western
\nand Asian cultures, we observe a preponderance of Chinese-accented English speech, as well as
\nChinese-English code-switched speech. This talk presents our group\u2019s research in the
\ndevelopment of spoken language technologies for recognition of Chinese-accented English
\nspeech, aimed at achieving mispronunciation detection and diagnoses to support computer-aided
\npronunciation training for raising English language proficiency. We will also present our work
\nin text-to-speech synthesis of Chinese-English code-switched speech using monolingual corpora
\nfrom different speakers, where the modeling needs to disentangle language and speaker
\ncharacteristics in the corpora.<\/p>\n
Biography:
\nHelen Meng is Patrick Huen Wing Ming Professor of Systems Engineering and Engineering
\nManagement at The Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK). Her research interests include
\nspeech and language technologies to support multilingual and multimodal human-computer
\ninteractions, eLearning and assistive technologies, as well as big data decision analytics using
\nAI. She leads the interdisciplinary research team that received the first Theme-based Research
\nScheme Project in Artificial Intelligence in 2019 from the HKSAR Government\u2019s Research
\nGrants Council. She is Chair of the Curriculum Development in the CUHK-JC AI4Future
\nProject, which has developed the courseware for pre-tertiary AI education being taught in a
\ngrowing number of participating secondary schools across Hong Kong.
\nHelen received all her degrees from MIT. She is the Founding Director of the CUHK
\nMinistry of Education (MoE)-Microsoft Key Laboratory for Human-Centric Computing and
\nInterface Technologies (since 2005), Tsinghua-CUHK Joint Research Center for Media
\nSciences, Technologies and Systems (since 2006), and Stanley Ho Big Data Decision Analytics
\nResearch Center (since 2013). Previously, she has served as CUHK Faculty of Engineering\u2019s
\nAssociate Dean (Research), Chairman of the Department of Systems Engineering and
\nEngineering Management, Editor-in-Chief of the IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech and
\nLanguage Processing, Member of the IEEE Signal Processing Society Board of Governors,<\/p>\n
ISCA Board Member and presently member of the IEEE SPS Awards Board and ISCA
\nInternational Advisory Council. She was elected APSIPA\u2019s inaugural Distinguished Lecturer
\n2012-2013 and ISCA Distinguished Lecturer 2015-2016. Her awards include the Ministry of
\nEducation Higher Education Outstanding Scientific Research Output Award 2009, Microsoft
\nResearch Outstanding Collaborator Award 2016 (1 in 32 worldwide), IBM Faculty Award 2016,
\nHKPWE Outstanding Women Professionals and Entrepreneurs Award 2017 (1 in 20 since 1999),
\nHong Kong ICT Silver Award 2018 in Smart Inclusion, 2019 IEEE SPS Leo L. Beranek
\nMeritorious Service Award and various best paper awards.
\nHelen has served in a number of government appointments, which include memberships
\nin the Steering Committee of Hong Kong\u2019s Electronic Health Record Sharing, Social Welfare
\nDepartment\u2019s Joint Committee on Information Technology for the Social Welfare Sector and
\nAdvisory Committee on financing social welfare services. She is also a member of the AI4SDGs
\nAI for Children Working Group. Helen is a Fellow of IEEE, ISCA, HKIE and HKCS.[\/vc_toggle][\/vc_column_inner][\/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/2″][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n
Professor Csaba Pl\u00e9h<\/a> | Central European University, Hungary<\/h4>\n[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/2″][vc_toggle title=”The Issue of Linguistic and Cultural Relativity” style=”arrow” color=”orange” size=”sm”]Csaba Pl\u00e9h<\/p>\n
Department of Cognitive Science
\nCentral European University
\nBudapest
\npleh.csaba@gmail.com<\/p>\n
I shall start off from three approaches to the thought\/culture relations. One is unconstrained
\nuniversalism, the other is the assumption of qualitative differences between types of thoughts
\nthat would by some interpretations correspond to patterns of culture and finally, the third
\napproach allows a multiplicity of styles of thought that can be combined in flexible ways.
\nAs empirical illustration of these assumptions I shall first characterize some proposals for
\npostulating a perceptual, cultural and contextual analyticity\/holism strategy difference that is
\nmany times related to assume East\/West cultural differences. Then I shall move on to what
\nthe issue of linguistic relativity taught us about dangers of relating typological differences,
\nand even differences in processing regarding assumed overall geographic\/cultural differences.
\nOne example is the issue of spatial orientation and language use. Strong claims were made by
\nLevison hat language determines the use of egocentric versus allocentric ori8entation.
\nHungarian, with its strongly articulated egocentric spatial marking system in noun phrases is a
\nclear candidate for the use of egocentric frames of reference. Our data, however, collected by
\nRoz\u00e1lia Iv\u00e1dy and Gabriella Felh\u0151si challenge this view. I shall argue that language, way of
\nlife, age and education all contribute to the peculiar interface of spatial orientation and
\nlanguage.
\nI shall argue on the basis of our own researches and from studies of other groups for a
\nconstrained relativity view, and for a proposal that the processing differences are not
\nabsolutes.[\/vc_toggle][\/vc_column_inner][\/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/2″][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n
Professor Hans-Georg Wolf <\/a>| University of Potsdam, Germany<\/h4>\n[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/2″][vc_toggle title=”Cultural Linguistics: Some Disciplinary and Terminological Considerations” style=”arrow” color=”orange” size=”sm”]Hans-Georg Wolf
\nThe University of Potsdam
\nhgwolf@uni-potsdam.de<\/p>\n
The success of Cultural Linguistics as a far-reaching research paradigm has been due, to a
\nvast extent, to Sharifian\u2019s (e.g., 2003, 2011, 2015, 2017a\/b) integration of previous theoretical
\nconcepts, methods, and terminologies into a unified theoretical approach. However, this
\nprocess of integration, to my mind, has not been completed. In fact, in a couple of
\npublications (Wolf, Finzel, and Latic fc.; K\u00fchmstedt and Wolf fc.), I was about to enter into a
\nterminological debate with Farzad Sharifian, when he suddenly departed. In this paper, I
\nwould like to take up and systematize this debate. Primarily, as regards theory, I will focus on
\nthe relation of Cultural Linguistics to Cognitive Sociolinguistics, and as regards terminology
\n(and methodology), on the central concept of \u2018cultural conceptualization.\u2019 By doing so, I hope
\nto solidify the paradigm of Cultural Linguistics even more and to provide further
\nterminological refinements.[\/vc_toggle][\/vc_column_inner][\/vc_row_inner][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n
Scope<\/strong><\/h2>\nCultural Linguistics is an emerging field that focuses on the interrelation between language and cultural conceptualisations. Over the last decade or so, Cultural Linguistics has witnessed tremendous growth and development in terms of theory, methodology, and application. The Cultural Linguistic framework has been applied to a range of different phenomena within and beyond language, culture, and cognition, integrating the theory and methodological tools of various disciplines, such as cognitive psychology, Complexity Science, Distributed Cognition, and anthropology.<\/span><\/p>\nCurrent research in Cultural Linguistics shows that its analytical framework can offer fruitful inquiries into research areas such as pragmatics, emotions, religion, political discourse, World Englishes, intercultural communication, and Teaching English as an International Language (TEIL). Within these domains, cultural conceptualisations manifest in the forms of cultural schemata, cultural metaphors and cultural categories.<\/span><\/p>\nThe conference welcomes presentations based on studies conducted from a Cultural Linguistic perspective, involving research into the nature of underlying cultural conceptualisations in language, the role of cultural conceptualisations in intercultural pragmatics, language development and language teaching. CLIC-2021 hopes to provide an interesting platform for researchers and academics interested in the proposed topics, detailed below:<\/span><\/p>\n[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n
TOPICS<\/strong><\/h2>\n
\nE\u00f6tv\u00f6s Lor\u00e1nd University
\nBudapest
\nkovecses.zoltan@btk.elte.hu<\/p>\n
\ndo not exist objectively) (Harari, 2015). These imagined realities are constituted by abstract
\nconcepts. As we know from conceptual metaphor theory (see, e.g., Lakoff and Johnson, 1980;
\nK\u00f6vecses, 2010), abstract concepts arise from more concrete concepts via figurative ways of
\nconceptualization, such as metonymy, metaphor, and blending. With the help of the concrete
\nconcepts that denote physical reality, people around the world create a large variety of
\nimagined realities, that is, cultures. The development of these cultures through time can be
\ncalled history.
\nHow did metaphor play a role in the emergence of cultures? I use \u201cextended conceptual
\nmetaphor theory\u201d (Extended CMT) (see K\u00f6vecses, 2015, 2020) to address this issue. There
\nare a number of more specific questions that need to be answered in such an undertaking.
\nThese include: Do we have any evidence for the existence of metaphorical thinking by early
\nhumans between roughly 30000 and 100000 years ago? What was the \u201centry level\u201d of
\nmetaphorical thinking as regards the participating conceptual structures \u2013 image schemas,
\nframes or something else? What kind of metaphors were used initially \u2013 correlation or
\nresemblance metaphors, or both? Did the emerging cultures share any forms of conceptual
\nmetaphors? How can we account for the apparent diversity of metaphorical thinking in later
\nperiods, but also maybe in the initial period of the emergence of metaphorical
\nconceptualization?
\nUnfortunately, in the talk, most of these questions will remain unanswered in a definitive way.
\nI raise them and provide some framework for their discussion in order to start dealing with
\nsuch issues in a principled way.<\/p>\n
\nHarari, Yuval N. 2015. Sapiens. A brief history of humankind. London: Vintage.
\nK\u00f6vecses, Zolt\u00e1n. 2010. Metaphor. A practical introduction. New York and Oxford: Oxford
\nUniversity Press.
\nK\u00f6vecses, Zolt\u00e1n. 2015. Where metaphors come from. Reconsidering context in metaphor.
\nNew York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
\nK\u00f6vecses, Zolt\u00e1n. 2020. Extended conceptual metaphor theory. Cambridge: Cambridge
\nUniversity Press.
\nLakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of
\nChicago Press.[\/vc_toggle][\/vc_column_inner][\/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/2″][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n
[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/2″][vc_toggle title=”Feet, Shoes , and Emotions in Cultural Conceptualizations” style=”arrow” color=”orange” size=”sm”]Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk
\nState University of Applied Sciences in Konin<\/p>\n
barbara.lewandowska.tomaszczyk@gmail.com<\/p>\n
The paper focuses on the phenomena of cultural foundations of the concepts of foot and shoes
\nand related forms in their onomasiological and semasiological perspectives. Physicality of the
\nhuman body and the processes of its conceptual embodiment as well as connected
\nemotionality on the one hand together with the contexts of cultural practices and artefacts
\ninvolving these forms on the other will be discussed and elaborated on in social cognitive
\ncontexts. Lexical forms concerning human body referring to legs and feet on the one hand as
\nwell as to shoeware on the other, are treated as broad meaning-building stimulators and
\npresented to support the constructing of culturally rich cognitive Image Schema
\nrepresentations and complex cultural conceptualizations. They emerge as a consequence of
\nthe dynamic usage models of these lexical forms in terms of accompanying emotion clusters,
\nrelated to each of the discussed concepts and relevant cultural scenarios. The framework
\nadopted for the analysis presents examples of multimodal types. Their analysis is carried out
\nin terms of interdisciplinary methodological instruments such as Cognitive Linguistic
\nconstrual and conceptualizations, relevant cultural schemas incorporating rich figurative
\nconstructions, social and historical models as well as emotion studies and corpus linguistic
\ntools, in particular usage frequency counts and collocational profiles. It is shown how the
\nrelevant cultural conceptualizations of the objects discussed come into existence as a result of
\ninteractions between members of a cultural group and are used in language and vision as
\nforms of particular prominence of the socio-cultural type.[\/vc_toggle][\/vc_column_inner][\/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/2″][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n
Professor Helen Meng<\/a> | Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong<\/h4>\n[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/2″][vc_toggle title=”From Accented Speech to Code-Switching: Developing Spoken Language Technologies Across Cultures” style=”arrow” color=”orange” size=”sm”]Helen Meng
\nChinese University of Hong Kong
\ncuhk2.hmmeng@gmail.com<\/p>\n
Spoken language offers a remarkably rich medium for human-human communication. It encodes
\ninformation through acoustics, phonetics and linguistics about what we mean, who we are, how
\nwe feel, and the context surrounding us. As Hong Kong is situated at the confluence of western
\nand Asian cultures, we observe a preponderance of Chinese-accented English speech, as well as
\nChinese-English code-switched speech. This talk presents our group\u2019s research in the
\ndevelopment of spoken language technologies for recognition of Chinese-accented English
\nspeech, aimed at achieving mispronunciation detection and diagnoses to support computer-aided
\npronunciation training for raising English language proficiency. We will also present our work
\nin text-to-speech synthesis of Chinese-English code-switched speech using monolingual corpora
\nfrom different speakers, where the modeling needs to disentangle language and speaker
\ncharacteristics in the corpora.<\/p>\n
Biography:
\nHelen Meng is Patrick Huen Wing Ming Professor of Systems Engineering and Engineering
\nManagement at The Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK). Her research interests include
\nspeech and language technologies to support multilingual and multimodal human-computer
\ninteractions, eLearning and assistive technologies, as well as big data decision analytics using
\nAI. She leads the interdisciplinary research team that received the first Theme-based Research
\nScheme Project in Artificial Intelligence in 2019 from the HKSAR Government\u2019s Research
\nGrants Council. She is Chair of the Curriculum Development in the CUHK-JC AI4Future
\nProject, which has developed the courseware for pre-tertiary AI education being taught in a
\ngrowing number of participating secondary schools across Hong Kong.
\nHelen received all her degrees from MIT. She is the Founding Director of the CUHK
\nMinistry of Education (MoE)-Microsoft Key Laboratory for Human-Centric Computing and
\nInterface Technologies (since 2005), Tsinghua-CUHK Joint Research Center for Media
\nSciences, Technologies and Systems (since 2006), and Stanley Ho Big Data Decision Analytics
\nResearch Center (since 2013). Previously, she has served as CUHK Faculty of Engineering\u2019s
\nAssociate Dean (Research), Chairman of the Department of Systems Engineering and
\nEngineering Management, Editor-in-Chief of the IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech and
\nLanguage Processing, Member of the IEEE Signal Processing Society Board of Governors,<\/p>\n
ISCA Board Member and presently member of the IEEE SPS Awards Board and ISCA
\nInternational Advisory Council. She was elected APSIPA\u2019s inaugural Distinguished Lecturer
\n2012-2013 and ISCA Distinguished Lecturer 2015-2016. Her awards include the Ministry of
\nEducation Higher Education Outstanding Scientific Research Output Award 2009, Microsoft
\nResearch Outstanding Collaborator Award 2016 (1 in 32 worldwide), IBM Faculty Award 2016,
\nHKPWE Outstanding Women Professionals and Entrepreneurs Award 2017 (1 in 20 since 1999),
\nHong Kong ICT Silver Award 2018 in Smart Inclusion, 2019 IEEE SPS Leo L. Beranek
\nMeritorious Service Award and various best paper awards.
\nHelen has served in a number of government appointments, which include memberships
\nin the Steering Committee of Hong Kong\u2019s Electronic Health Record Sharing, Social Welfare
\nDepartment\u2019s Joint Committee on Information Technology for the Social Welfare Sector and
\nAdvisory Committee on financing social welfare services. She is also a member of the AI4SDGs
\nAI for Children Working Group. Helen is a Fellow of IEEE, ISCA, HKIE and HKCS.[\/vc_toggle][\/vc_column_inner][\/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/2″][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n
Professor Csaba Pl\u00e9h<\/a> | Central European University, Hungary<\/h4>\n[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/2″][vc_toggle title=”The Issue of Linguistic and Cultural Relativity” style=”arrow” color=”orange” size=”sm”]Csaba Pl\u00e9h<\/p>\n
Department of Cognitive Science
\nCentral European University
\nBudapest
\npleh.csaba@gmail.com<\/p>\n
I shall start off from three approaches to the thought\/culture relations. One is unconstrained
\nuniversalism, the other is the assumption of qualitative differences between types of thoughts
\nthat would by some interpretations correspond to patterns of culture and finally, the third
\napproach allows a multiplicity of styles of thought that can be combined in flexible ways.
\nAs empirical illustration of these assumptions I shall first characterize some proposals for
\npostulating a perceptual, cultural and contextual analyticity\/holism strategy difference that is
\nmany times related to assume East\/West cultural differences. Then I shall move on to what
\nthe issue of linguistic relativity taught us about dangers of relating typological differences,
\nand even differences in processing regarding assumed overall geographic\/cultural differences.
\nOne example is the issue of spatial orientation and language use. Strong claims were made by
\nLevison hat language determines the use of egocentric versus allocentric ori8entation.
\nHungarian, with its strongly articulated egocentric spatial marking system in noun phrases is a
\nclear candidate for the use of egocentric frames of reference. Our data, however, collected by
\nRoz\u00e1lia Iv\u00e1dy and Gabriella Felh\u0151si challenge this view. I shall argue that language, way of
\nlife, age and education all contribute to the peculiar interface of spatial orientation and
\nlanguage.
\nI shall argue on the basis of our own researches and from studies of other groups for a
\nconstrained relativity view, and for a proposal that the processing differences are not
\nabsolutes.[\/vc_toggle][\/vc_column_inner][\/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/2″][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n
Professor Hans-Georg Wolf <\/a>| University of Potsdam, Germany<\/h4>\n[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/2″][vc_toggle title=”Cultural Linguistics: Some Disciplinary and Terminological Considerations” style=”arrow” color=”orange” size=”sm”]Hans-Georg Wolf
\nThe University of Potsdam
\nhgwolf@uni-potsdam.de<\/p>\n
The success of Cultural Linguistics as a far-reaching research paradigm has been due, to a
\nvast extent, to Sharifian\u2019s (e.g., 2003, 2011, 2015, 2017a\/b) integration of previous theoretical
\nconcepts, methods, and terminologies into a unified theoretical approach. However, this
\nprocess of integration, to my mind, has not been completed. In fact, in a couple of
\npublications (Wolf, Finzel, and Latic fc.; K\u00fchmstedt and Wolf fc.), I was about to enter into a
\nterminological debate with Farzad Sharifian, when he suddenly departed. In this paper, I
\nwould like to take up and systematize this debate. Primarily, as regards theory, I will focus on
\nthe relation of Cultural Linguistics to Cognitive Sociolinguistics, and as regards terminology
\n(and methodology), on the central concept of \u2018cultural conceptualization.\u2019 By doing so, I hope
\nto solidify the paradigm of Cultural Linguistics even more and to provide further
\nterminological refinements.[\/vc_toggle][\/vc_column_inner][\/vc_row_inner][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n
Scope<\/strong><\/h2>\nCultural Linguistics is an emerging field that focuses on the interrelation between language and cultural conceptualisations. Over the last decade or so, Cultural Linguistics has witnessed tremendous growth and development in terms of theory, methodology, and application. The Cultural Linguistic framework has been applied to a range of different phenomena within and beyond language, culture, and cognition, integrating the theory and methodological tools of various disciplines, such as cognitive psychology, Complexity Science, Distributed Cognition, and anthropology.<\/span><\/p>\nCurrent research in Cultural Linguistics shows that its analytical framework can offer fruitful inquiries into research areas such as pragmatics, emotions, religion, political discourse, World Englishes, intercultural communication, and Teaching English as an International Language (TEIL). Within these domains, cultural conceptualisations manifest in the forms of cultural schemata, cultural metaphors and cultural categories.<\/span><\/p>\nThe conference welcomes presentations based on studies conducted from a Cultural Linguistic perspective, involving research into the nature of underlying cultural conceptualisations in language, the role of cultural conceptualisations in intercultural pragmatics, language development and language teaching. CLIC-2021 hopes to provide an interesting platform for researchers and academics interested in the proposed topics, detailed below:<\/span><\/p>\n[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n
TOPICS<\/strong><\/h2>\n
\nChinese University of Hong Kong
\ncuhk2.hmmeng@gmail.com<\/p>\n
\ninformation through acoustics, phonetics and linguistics about what we mean, who we are, how
\nwe feel, and the context surrounding us. As Hong Kong is situated at the confluence of western
\nand Asian cultures, we observe a preponderance of Chinese-accented English speech, as well as
\nChinese-English code-switched speech. This talk presents our group\u2019s research in the
\ndevelopment of spoken language technologies for recognition of Chinese-accented English
\nspeech, aimed at achieving mispronunciation detection and diagnoses to support computer-aided
\npronunciation training for raising English language proficiency. We will also present our work
\nin text-to-speech synthesis of Chinese-English code-switched speech using monolingual corpora
\nfrom different speakers, where the modeling needs to disentangle language and speaker
\ncharacteristics in the corpora.<\/p>\n
\nHelen Meng is Patrick Huen Wing Ming Professor of Systems Engineering and Engineering
\nManagement at The Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK). Her research interests include
\nspeech and language technologies to support multilingual and multimodal human-computer
\ninteractions, eLearning and assistive technologies, as well as big data decision analytics using
\nAI. She leads the interdisciplinary research team that received the first Theme-based Research
\nScheme Project in Artificial Intelligence in 2019 from the HKSAR Government\u2019s Research
\nGrants Council. She is Chair of the Curriculum Development in the CUHK-JC AI4Future
\nProject, which has developed the courseware for pre-tertiary AI education being taught in a
\ngrowing number of participating secondary schools across Hong Kong.
\nHelen received all her degrees from MIT. She is the Founding Director of the CUHK
\nMinistry of Education (MoE)-Microsoft Key Laboratory for Human-Centric Computing and
\nInterface Technologies (since 2005), Tsinghua-CUHK Joint Research Center for Media
\nSciences, Technologies and Systems (since 2006), and Stanley Ho Big Data Decision Analytics
\nResearch Center (since 2013). Previously, she has served as CUHK Faculty of Engineering\u2019s
\nAssociate Dean (Research), Chairman of the Department of Systems Engineering and
\nEngineering Management, Editor-in-Chief of the IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech and
\nLanguage Processing, Member of the IEEE Signal Processing Society Board of Governors,<\/p>\n
\nInternational Advisory Council. She was elected APSIPA\u2019s inaugural Distinguished Lecturer
\n2012-2013 and ISCA Distinguished Lecturer 2015-2016. Her awards include the Ministry of
\nEducation Higher Education Outstanding Scientific Research Output Award 2009, Microsoft
\nResearch Outstanding Collaborator Award 2016 (1 in 32 worldwide), IBM Faculty Award 2016,
\nHKPWE Outstanding Women Professionals and Entrepreneurs Award 2017 (1 in 20 since 1999),
\nHong Kong ICT Silver Award 2018 in Smart Inclusion, 2019 IEEE SPS Leo L. Beranek
\nMeritorious Service Award and various best paper awards.
\nHelen has served in a number of government appointments, which include memberships
\nin the Steering Committee of Hong Kong\u2019s Electronic Health Record Sharing, Social Welfare
\nDepartment\u2019s Joint Committee on Information Technology for the Social Welfare Sector and
\nAdvisory Committee on financing social welfare services. She is also a member of the AI4SDGs
\nAI for Children Working Group. Helen is a Fellow of IEEE, ISCA, HKIE and HKCS.[\/vc_toggle][\/vc_column_inner][\/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/2″][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n
[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/2″][vc_toggle title=”The Issue of Linguistic and Cultural Relativity” style=”arrow” color=”orange” size=”sm”]Csaba Pl\u00e9h<\/p>\n
Department of Cognitive Science
\nCentral European University
\nBudapest
\npleh.csaba@gmail.com<\/p>\n
I shall start off from three approaches to the thought\/culture relations. One is unconstrained
\nuniversalism, the other is the assumption of qualitative differences between types of thoughts
\nthat would by some interpretations correspond to patterns of culture and finally, the third
\napproach allows a multiplicity of styles of thought that can be combined in flexible ways.
\nAs empirical illustration of these assumptions I shall first characterize some proposals for
\npostulating a perceptual, cultural and contextual analyticity\/holism strategy difference that is
\nmany times related to assume East\/West cultural differences. Then I shall move on to what
\nthe issue of linguistic relativity taught us about dangers of relating typological differences,
\nand even differences in processing regarding assumed overall geographic\/cultural differences.
\nOne example is the issue of spatial orientation and language use. Strong claims were made by
\nLevison hat language determines the use of egocentric versus allocentric ori8entation.
\nHungarian, with its strongly articulated egocentric spatial marking system in noun phrases is a
\nclear candidate for the use of egocentric frames of reference. Our data, however, collected by
\nRoz\u00e1lia Iv\u00e1dy and Gabriella Felh\u0151si challenge this view. I shall argue that language, way of
\nlife, age and education all contribute to the peculiar interface of spatial orientation and
\nlanguage.
\nI shall argue on the basis of our own researches and from studies of other groups for a
\nconstrained relativity view, and for a proposal that the processing differences are not
\nabsolutes.[\/vc_toggle][\/vc_column_inner][\/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/2″][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n
Professor Hans-Georg Wolf <\/a>| University of Potsdam, Germany<\/h4>\n[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1\/2″][vc_toggle title=”Cultural Linguistics: Some Disciplinary and Terminological Considerations” style=”arrow” color=”orange” size=”sm”]Hans-Georg Wolf
\nThe University of Potsdam
\nhgwolf@uni-potsdam.de<\/p>\n
The success of Cultural Linguistics as a far-reaching research paradigm has been due, to a
\nvast extent, to Sharifian\u2019s (e.g., 2003, 2011, 2015, 2017a\/b) integration of previous theoretical
\nconcepts, methods, and terminologies into a unified theoretical approach. However, this
\nprocess of integration, to my mind, has not been completed. In fact, in a couple of
\npublications (Wolf, Finzel, and Latic fc.; K\u00fchmstedt and Wolf fc.), I was about to enter into a
\nterminological debate with Farzad Sharifian, when he suddenly departed. In this paper, I
\nwould like to take up and systematize this debate. Primarily, as regards theory, I will focus on
\nthe relation of Cultural Linguistics to Cognitive Sociolinguistics, and as regards terminology
\n(and methodology), on the central concept of \u2018cultural conceptualization.\u2019 By doing so, I hope
\nto solidify the paradigm of Cultural Linguistics even more and to provide further
\nterminological refinements.[\/vc_toggle][\/vc_column_inner][\/vc_row_inner][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n
Scope<\/strong><\/h2>\nCultural Linguistics is an emerging field that focuses on the interrelation between language and cultural conceptualisations. Over the last decade or so, Cultural Linguistics has witnessed tremendous growth and development in terms of theory, methodology, and application. The Cultural Linguistic framework has been applied to a range of different phenomena within and beyond language, culture, and cognition, integrating the theory and methodological tools of various disciplines, such as cognitive psychology, Complexity Science, Distributed Cognition, and anthropology.<\/span><\/p>\nCurrent research in Cultural Linguistics shows that its analytical framework can offer fruitful inquiries into research areas such as pragmatics, emotions, religion, political discourse, World Englishes, intercultural communication, and Teaching English as an International Language (TEIL). Within these domains, cultural conceptualisations manifest in the forms of cultural schemata, cultural metaphors and cultural categories.<\/span><\/p>\nThe conference welcomes presentations based on studies conducted from a Cultural Linguistic perspective, involving research into the nature of underlying cultural conceptualisations in language, the role of cultural conceptualisations in intercultural pragmatics, language development and language teaching. CLIC-2021 hopes to provide an interesting platform for researchers and academics interested in the proposed topics, detailed below:<\/span><\/p>\n[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n
TOPICS<\/strong><\/h2>\n
\nThe University of Potsdam
\nhgwolf@uni-potsdam.de<\/p>\n
\nvast extent, to Sharifian\u2019s (e.g., 2003, 2011, 2015, 2017a\/b) integration of previous theoretical
\nconcepts, methods, and terminologies into a unified theoretical approach. However, this
\nprocess of integration, to my mind, has not been completed. In fact, in a couple of
\npublications (Wolf, Finzel, and Latic fc.; K\u00fchmstedt and Wolf fc.), I was about to enter into a
\nterminological debate with Farzad Sharifian, when he suddenly departed. In this paper, I
\nwould like to take up and systematize this debate. Primarily, as regards theory, I will focus on
\nthe relation of Cultural Linguistics to Cognitive Sociolinguistics, and as regards terminology
\n(and methodology), on the central concept of \u2018cultural conceptualization.\u2019 By doing so, I hope
\nto solidify the paradigm of Cultural Linguistics even more and to provide further
\nterminological refinements.[\/vc_toggle][\/vc_column_inner][\/vc_row_inner][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n
Cultural Linguistics is an emerging field that focuses on the interrelation between language and cultural conceptualisations. Over the last decade or so, Cultural Linguistics has witnessed tremendous growth and development in terms of theory, methodology, and application. The Cultural Linguistic framework has been applied to a range of different phenomena within and beyond language, culture, and cognition, integrating the theory and methodological tools of various disciplines, such as cognitive psychology, Complexity Science, Distributed Cognition, and anthropology.<\/span><\/p>\n Current research in Cultural Linguistics shows that its analytical framework can offer fruitful inquiries into research areas such as pragmatics, emotions, religion, political discourse, World Englishes, intercultural communication, and Teaching English as an International Language (TEIL). Within these domains, cultural conceptualisations manifest in the forms of cultural schemata, cultural metaphors and cultural categories.<\/span><\/p>\n The conference welcomes presentations based on studies conducted from a Cultural Linguistic perspective, involving research into the nature of underlying cultural conceptualisations in language, the role of cultural conceptualisations in intercultural pragmatics, language development and language teaching. CLIC-2021 hopes to provide an interesting platform for researchers and academics interested in the proposed topics, detailed below:<\/span><\/p>\n [\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]<\/p>\nTOPICS<\/strong><\/h2>\n