- Appels à communication (recherche),
- Recherche - LLS,
Parameters of Language Staging (PLS 8): Forms, Functions, and Multimodal Dynamics of Staged Discourse
Publié le 7 juillet 2025
–
Mis à jour le 9 juillet 2025
This conference is part of a series of scientific events organized by the GReMLIN research group at Paris Nanterre University, which aims to advance the reflection on the parameters of meaning (re)construction, conceived as a dynamic, context-bound activity involving multiple levels of linguistic structure – morphosyntax, phonology, prosody, gesture, semantics, and pragmatics. This 8th edition addresses the staging of discourse and the forms and functions of staged discourse, with a particular focus on spoken/multimodal data.
Date(s)
du 21 mai 2026 au 22 mai 2026
Lieu(x)
Bâtiment Max Weber (W)
Amphithéatre
This conference is part of a series of scientific events organized by the GReMLIN research group at Paris Nanterre University, which aims to advance the reflection on the parameters of meaning (re)construction, conceived as a dynamic, context-bound activity involving multiple levels of linguistic structure – morphosyntax, phonology, prosody, gesture, semantics, and pragmatics.
This 8th edition addresses the staging of discourse and the forms and functions of staged discourse, with a particular focus on spoken/multimodal data.
Building on Bauman (1992), Coupland (2007), and Bell & Gibson (2011), staged discourse is defined as discourse produced within the setting of an oral/multimodal performance that is (partially) planned and/or scripted, deliberately staged in front of an audience, and characterized by embodied, interactive, and expressive dimensions. Staged discourse may pursue various (and often overlapping) goals, which may be informational, argumentative, persuasive, artistic, stylistic, or aesthetic, among others. Types of staged discourse include, but are not limited to:
In relation to political but also academic and informational discourse, one area of interest is the conversationalization and informalization of speech, where speakers increasingly adopt interactional features and colloquial styles drawn from everyday conversation to foster authenticity and proximity with their audiences (Clayman & Heritage 2002; Fairclough 2003; Fetzer & Weizman 2006). A second key aspect concerns the dramatization of politics, both in its contemporary forms and over time. This includes the transformation of political actors into entertainers (Schütz 1995; Loeb 2017), particularly in English-speaking countries where they are increasingly expected to display charisma and humor in order to engage diverse audiences. Such shifts raise questions about the blending of entertainment and political functions and the evolving norms of authenticity, authority, credibility, and persuasion in the public sphere (Hall et al. 2016).
As for Foreign Language (FL) and/or Second Language (SL) speech, the successes and challenges of staged discourse in class (e.g., role-plays, drama sketches, and expository presentations) deserve closer examination. Indeed, one can wonder whether and how these activities may enhance the communicative competence of FL/SL learners (Stinson & Winston 2011; Belliveau & Kim 2013). Questions also arise with respect to how teachers build their classroom personae, what routines underpin their performances, what didactic purposes motivate them, and how these routines shape the interaction with learners (Heller & Grøver 2022; Nesi 2023). Another important area involves the management of linguistic insecurity in classroom settings (Horwitz et al. 1986), both for learners and teachers, particularly those who are not language specialists but teach their subject in English (CLIL/EMI) or other languages (Dalton-Puffer 2009; Dalton-Puffer & Bauer-Marschallinger 2023; Lee et al. 2023). What linguistic features betray such insecurity, and what strategies do learners and teachers rely on to overcome it? Such insecurity, or on the contrary (over-)confidence in one’s linguistic skills, can also be investigated outside of the classroom. For instance, focusing on speakers who use English as a Global language (Crystal 2003) for a variety of purposes within the context of international communication can shed light on differential linguistic power dynamics and speakers’ contrasting linguistic statuses (e.g., the Trump-Zelensky clash in the Oval Office).
Finally, this scientific event also offers an opportunity to characterize and analyze underexplored types of staged discourse, such as religious preaching (e.g., GOD TV), slam poetry (Vorger 2011), and sung voice versus spoken voice, particularly from a phonostylistic and sociolinguistic perspective (Trudgill 1983). Analyses of such genres can offer unique insights into how speakers construct identity, connect with audiences, and navigate social norms through language in performance settings that blend communication with ritual and artistic practice.
We welcome contributions from a variety of theoretical and methodological frameworks, including pragmatics, discourse analysis, sociolinguistics, multimodal analysis, interactional linguistics, and FL/SL teaching and learning. While GReMLIN’s primary expertise is English, we also welcome studies focused on other languages, which may or may not adopt a comparative perspective. We encourage research based on corpus data that can provide valuable empirical insights into the features and functions of staged discourse across different contexts.
Bauman, R. (1992). Performance. In Bauman, R. (Ed.), Folklore, Cultural Performances, and Popular Entertainments. NewYork/Oxford: Oxford University Press. 41-49.
Bednarek, M. (2010). The Language of Fictional Television: Drama and Identity. UK: Bloomsbury Academic.
Bednarek, M. (2018). Language and Television series: a linguistic approach to TV dialogue. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bednarek, M., & Syron, L.-M. (2022). Functions of dialogue in (television) drama: A case study of Indigenous-authored television narratives. Language and Literature, 32(1), 3-27.
Belliveau, G., & Kim, W. (2013). Drama in L2 learning: A research synthesis. Scenario: A Journal for Performative Teaching, Learning, Research VII(2). 7-27.
Bell, A. (1984). Style as Audience Design. Language in Society 13. 145-204.
Bell, A. & Gibson, A. (2011). Staging Language: An Introduction to the Sociolinguistics of Performance. Journal of Sociolinguistics 15(5). 555-572.
Bublitz, W. (2017). Oral features in fiction. In Locher, M., & A.H. Jucker (Eds.), Pragmatics of Fiction, Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 235-264.
Candea, M., Planchenault, G., & Trimaille, C. (2019). Accents du français: approches critiques. Glottopol, numéro thématique, (31), 2-162.
Clark, U. (2019). Staging language: Place and identity in the enactment, performance and representation of regional dialects. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Clayman, S., & Heritage, H. (2002). The News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coupland, N. (2007). Style: Language Variation and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crystal, D. (2003). English as a Global Language. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2009). Communicative Competence and the CLIL Lesson. In Ruiz de Zarobe, Y., & R. Jiménez Catalán (Ed.), Content and Language Integrated Learning: Evidence from Research in Europe. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 197-214.
Dalton-Puffer, C., & Bauer-Marschallinger, S. (2023). L2 proficiency and development in CLIL. In Lasagabaster, D., A. Doiz, & J. M. Sierra (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of content and language integrated Learning. Routledge. 112-126.
Duffy, B. K., & Winchell, M. R. (1989). “Speak the speech, I pray you.” The practice and perils of literary and oratorical ghostwriting. Southern Communication Journal 55(1). 102-115.
Fairclough, N. (2003). Conversationalization of public discourse and the authority of the consumer. In Abercrombie, N., R. Keat & N. Whiteley (Eds.), The Authority of the Consumer. London: Routledge. 245-259.
Fetzer, A., & Weizman, E. (2006). Political discourse as mediated and public discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 38(2). 143-153.
Hall, K., Goldstein, D. M., & Ingram, M. B. (2016). The hands of Donald Trump: Entertainment, gesture, spectacle. HAU: journal of ethnographic theory 6(2). 71-100.
Heller, M. C., & Grøver, V. (2022). Teachers’ instructional talk in a partly scripted language intervention targeting young second-language learners: developments over time. International Journal of Early Years Education 30:2. 322-338.
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern language journal 70(2). 125-132.
Jucker, A.H. (2021). “Features of orality in the language of fiction: A corpus-based investigation”, Language and Literature 30(4). 341-360.
Lee, J. H., Lee, H., & Lo, Y. Y. (2023). Effects of EMI-CLIL on secondary-level students’ English learning: A multilevel meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 13(2), 317-345.
Loeb, L. (2017). Politicians on celebrity talk shows. Discourse, context & media 20. 146-156.
Montini, D., & Ranzato, I. (Eds.). (2021). The Dialects of British English in Fictional Texts (1st ed.). New York: Routledge.
Nesi, H. (2023). Lecture Discourse and the Study of Languages for Specific Academic Purposes: What Makes a Good Model Text? Recherche et pratiques pédagogiques en langues 42(2). URL : http://journals.openedition.org/apliut/10834
Planchenault, G. (2014). Mise en scène du discours d’autorité des experts dans la publicité. De l’éloquence du scientifique à la maladresse du praticien. Mots. Les langages du politique 105. http://journals.openedition.org/mots/21725.
Schlesinger, R. (2008). White House Ghosts : Presidents and Their Speechwriters. 1st Simon & Schuster hardcover edition. New York/London: Simon & Schuster.
Schütz, A. (1995). Entertainers, experts, or public servants? Politicians’ self‐presentation on television talk shows. Political Communication 12(2). 211-221.
Stinson, M., & Winston, J. (2011). Drama education and second language learning: a growing field of practice and research. Research in Drama Education: The Journal of Applied Theatre and Performance. 16(4). 479-488.
Trudgill, P. (1983). Acts of conflicting identity: The sociolinguistics of British pop-song pronunciation. In P. Trudgill (Ed.), On dialect: Social and geographical perspectives. Oxford: Blackwell. 141-160.
Vorger, C. (2011). Poétique du slam : de la scène à l'école : néologie, néostyles et créativité lexicale (Doctoral dissertation, Université Grenoble Alpes). TEL - Thèses en ligne.
This 8th edition addresses the staging of discourse and the forms and functions of staged discourse, with a particular focus on spoken/multimodal data.
Building on Bauman (1992), Coupland (2007), and Bell & Gibson (2011), staged discourse is defined as discourse produced within the setting of an oral/multimodal performance that is (partially) planned and/or scripted, deliberately staged in front of an audience, and characterized by embodied, interactive, and expressive dimensions. Staged discourse may pursue various (and often overlapping) goals, which may be informational, argumentative, persuasive, artistic, stylistic, or aesthetic, among others. Types of staged discourse include, but are not limited to:
- Contemporary fictional dialogue (films, TV series, theatre)
- Entertainment discourse, such as stand-up comedy and talk shows (reality shows, “edutainment”, etc.)
- Political discourse
- Legal pleadings
- Advertising discourse on social media and TV/radio
- News discourse on social media and TV/radio
- Spoken academic discourse and its popularized forms (lectures, conferences, TED-style talks, etc.)
- Performed discourse in foreign language teaching and learning contexts (drama sketches, role-plays, oral presentations, routines, teacher-performed discourse, dramatization of the learning process for didactic purposes, teacher’s self-staging, etc.)
- Religious preaching (sermons)
- Sung voice (versus spoken voice)
- Slam poetry
- How do linguistic resources at different levels, such as syntax, lexicon, phonology, prosody, and gesture, interact in shaping meaning and interpersonal relations within staged discourse?
- How are multiple and sometimes conflicting communicative goals negotiated and realized through language in staged discourse?
- How do speakers and their audiences co-construct staged discourse, and how does the design of performances impact interaction, reception, and perception (Bell 1984; Montini & Ranzato 2021)?
- How do speakers balance naturalness and orchestration, and how does staged discourse differ in use, forms, and/or functions from spontaneous spoken interaction (Bednarek 2010, 2018; Bublitz 2017; Jucker 2021)?
- What role does the script play in staged discourse, and to what extent do speakers rely on, interpret, or adapt scripted material when performing an interaction (Duffy & Winchell 1989; Schlesinger 2008)?
- How are staged performances evaluated as successful or failed, and what (language-internal and -external) parameters influence these judgments across different contexts?
In relation to political but also academic and informational discourse, one area of interest is the conversationalization and informalization of speech, where speakers increasingly adopt interactional features and colloquial styles drawn from everyday conversation to foster authenticity and proximity with their audiences (Clayman & Heritage 2002; Fairclough 2003; Fetzer & Weizman 2006). A second key aspect concerns the dramatization of politics, both in its contemporary forms and over time. This includes the transformation of political actors into entertainers (Schütz 1995; Loeb 2017), particularly in English-speaking countries where they are increasingly expected to display charisma and humor in order to engage diverse audiences. Such shifts raise questions about the blending of entertainment and political functions and the evolving norms of authenticity, authority, credibility, and persuasion in the public sphere (Hall et al. 2016).
As for Foreign Language (FL) and/or Second Language (SL) speech, the successes and challenges of staged discourse in class (e.g., role-plays, drama sketches, and expository presentations) deserve closer examination. Indeed, one can wonder whether and how these activities may enhance the communicative competence of FL/SL learners (Stinson & Winston 2011; Belliveau & Kim 2013). Questions also arise with respect to how teachers build their classroom personae, what routines underpin their performances, what didactic purposes motivate them, and how these routines shape the interaction with learners (Heller & Grøver 2022; Nesi 2023). Another important area involves the management of linguistic insecurity in classroom settings (Horwitz et al. 1986), both for learners and teachers, particularly those who are not language specialists but teach their subject in English (CLIL/EMI) or other languages (Dalton-Puffer 2009; Dalton-Puffer & Bauer-Marschallinger 2023; Lee et al. 2023). What linguistic features betray such insecurity, and what strategies do learners and teachers rely on to overcome it? Such insecurity, or on the contrary (over-)confidence in one’s linguistic skills, can also be investigated outside of the classroom. For instance, focusing on speakers who use English as a Global language (Crystal 2003) for a variety of purposes within the context of international communication can shed light on differential linguistic power dynamics and speakers’ contrasting linguistic statuses (e.g., the Trump-Zelensky clash in the Oval Office).
Finally, this scientific event also offers an opportunity to characterize and analyze underexplored types of staged discourse, such as religious preaching (e.g., GOD TV), slam poetry (Vorger 2011), and sung voice versus spoken voice, particularly from a phonostylistic and sociolinguistic perspective (Trudgill 1983). Analyses of such genres can offer unique insights into how speakers construct identity, connect with audiences, and navigate social norms through language in performance settings that blend communication with ritual and artistic practice.
We welcome contributions from a variety of theoretical and methodological frameworks, including pragmatics, discourse analysis, sociolinguistics, multimodal analysis, interactional linguistics, and FL/SL teaching and learning. While GReMLIN’s primary expertise is English, we also welcome studies focused on other languages, which may or may not adopt a comparative perspective. We encourage research based on corpus data that can provide valuable empirical insights into the features and functions of staged discourse across different contexts.
Selected references
Bauman, R. (1992). Performance. In Bauman, R. (Ed.), Folklore, Cultural Performances, and Popular Entertainments. NewYork/Oxford: Oxford University Press. 41-49.Bednarek, M. (2010). The Language of Fictional Television: Drama and Identity. UK: Bloomsbury Academic.
Bednarek, M. (2018). Language and Television series: a linguistic approach to TV dialogue. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bednarek, M., & Syron, L.-M. (2022). Functions of dialogue in (television) drama: A case study of Indigenous-authored television narratives. Language and Literature, 32(1), 3-27.
Belliveau, G., & Kim, W. (2013). Drama in L2 learning: A research synthesis. Scenario: A Journal for Performative Teaching, Learning, Research VII(2). 7-27.
Bell, A. (1984). Style as Audience Design. Language in Society 13. 145-204.
Bell, A. & Gibson, A. (2011). Staging Language: An Introduction to the Sociolinguistics of Performance. Journal of Sociolinguistics 15(5). 555-572.
Bublitz, W. (2017). Oral features in fiction. In Locher, M., & A.H. Jucker (Eds.), Pragmatics of Fiction, Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 235-264.
Candea, M., Planchenault, G., & Trimaille, C. (2019). Accents du français: approches critiques. Glottopol, numéro thématique, (31), 2-162.
Clark, U. (2019). Staging language: Place and identity in the enactment, performance and representation of regional dialects. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Clayman, S., & Heritage, H. (2002). The News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coupland, N. (2007). Style: Language Variation and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crystal, D. (2003). English as a Global Language. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2009). Communicative Competence and the CLIL Lesson. In Ruiz de Zarobe, Y., & R. Jiménez Catalán (Ed.), Content and Language Integrated Learning: Evidence from Research in Europe. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 197-214.
Dalton-Puffer, C., & Bauer-Marschallinger, S. (2023). L2 proficiency and development in CLIL. In Lasagabaster, D., A. Doiz, & J. M. Sierra (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of content and language integrated Learning. Routledge. 112-126.
Duffy, B. K., & Winchell, M. R. (1989). “Speak the speech, I pray you.” The practice and perils of literary and oratorical ghostwriting. Southern Communication Journal 55(1). 102-115.
Fairclough, N. (2003). Conversationalization of public discourse and the authority of the consumer. In Abercrombie, N., R. Keat & N. Whiteley (Eds.), The Authority of the Consumer. London: Routledge. 245-259.
Fetzer, A., & Weizman, E. (2006). Political discourse as mediated and public discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 38(2). 143-153.
Hall, K., Goldstein, D. M., & Ingram, M. B. (2016). The hands of Donald Trump: Entertainment, gesture, spectacle. HAU: journal of ethnographic theory 6(2). 71-100.
Heller, M. C., & Grøver, V. (2022). Teachers’ instructional talk in a partly scripted language intervention targeting young second-language learners: developments over time. International Journal of Early Years Education 30:2. 322-338.
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern language journal 70(2). 125-132.
Jucker, A.H. (2021). “Features of orality in the language of fiction: A corpus-based investigation”, Language and Literature 30(4). 341-360.
Lee, J. H., Lee, H., & Lo, Y. Y. (2023). Effects of EMI-CLIL on secondary-level students’ English learning: A multilevel meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 13(2), 317-345.
Loeb, L. (2017). Politicians on celebrity talk shows. Discourse, context & media 20. 146-156.
Montini, D., & Ranzato, I. (Eds.). (2021). The Dialects of British English in Fictional Texts (1st ed.). New York: Routledge.
Nesi, H. (2023). Lecture Discourse and the Study of Languages for Specific Academic Purposes: What Makes a Good Model Text? Recherche et pratiques pédagogiques en langues 42(2). URL : http://journals.openedition.org/apliut/10834
Planchenault, G. (2014). Mise en scène du discours d’autorité des experts dans la publicité. De l’éloquence du scientifique à la maladresse du praticien. Mots. Les langages du politique 105. http://journals.openedition.org/mots/21725.
Schlesinger, R. (2008). White House Ghosts : Presidents and Their Speechwriters. 1st Simon & Schuster hardcover edition. New York/London: Simon & Schuster.
Schütz, A. (1995). Entertainers, experts, or public servants? Politicians’ self‐presentation on television talk shows. Political Communication 12(2). 211-221.
Stinson, M., & Winston, J. (2011). Drama education and second language learning: a growing field of practice and research. Research in Drama Education: The Journal of Applied Theatre and Performance. 16(4). 479-488.
Trudgill, P. (1983). Acts of conflicting identity: The sociolinguistics of British pop-song pronunciation. In P. Trudgill (Ed.), On dialect: Social and geographical perspectives. Oxford: Blackwell. 141-160.
Vorger, C. (2011). Poétique du slam : de la scène à l'école : néologie, néostyles et créativité lexicale (Doctoral dissertation, Université Grenoble Alpes). TEL - Thèses en ligne.
Mis à jour le 09 juillet 2025