https://tinyurl.com/vitaling

Jeudi 16/11

9h : accueil

9h30-10h30 : conférence : Marinette Matthey (UGA, LIDILEM) : Les métaphores naturalistes dans les discours de sauvegarde des langues

10h45 : session 1 : usages politiques de la métaphore biologique

- 10h45-11h20 : Naoko Hosokawa, Univ. de Tokyo : Au-delà de la distinction entre espèces "indigènes" et espèces "envahissantes"
- 11h20-11h55 : Kahina Ould Fella, Univ. M. Mammeri, Tizi Ouzou : Autour de la revitalisation des variétés berbères en Algérie : Analyse de quelques stratégies argumentatives dans le discours épilinguistique des acteurs glottopolitques
- 11h55-12h30 : Catherine Roth, UHA, CRESAT : Botanisation des identités, lignification de la langue : la naturalisation des nations par le végétal

PAUSE DÉJEUNER

14h- 15h : Conférence : Carita Klippi, Univ. Tampere, HTL : Transfert épistémique. Le réseau de métaphores biologiques dans la linguistique française à la charnière des XIX^e et XX^e siècles

(pause)

session 2 : la métaphore biologique dans les modèles explicatifs en linguistique (1)
- 15h15-15h50 : Valentina Bisconti, UPJV, CERCLL/HTL : Penser la diachronie des langues à travers l'humain : le cas de la sémantique de la fin du XIX^e siècle.
- 15h50-16h25 : O.S. Candau, Univ. Antilles, CRREF : Créologenèse et métaphore de l’évolution. L’exemple de Salikoko Mufwene

(pause)

session 3 : la métaphore biologique dans les modèles explicatifs en linguistique (2)
- 16h40-17h15 : Jacques François, Univ. de Caen : La place décentrée de la parole humaine dans la biosémiotique  contemporaine (Sebeok)
- 17h15-17h50 :  Serhii Wakulenko, Société Historico-Philologique de Kharkiv : Le rejet de la métaphore biologique, à quoi aboutit-il ? L’expérience d’Esaias Tegnér le jeune (1843–1928) et sa continuation dans la pratique définitoire postérieure

Vendredi 17/11

9h- 10h : Conférence : LTTR 13, Univ. Liège : Imaginaires cycliques et croisés : à quoi s’oppose le vitalisme ?

(pause)

session 4 : vie biologique et vie vécue
- 10h15-10h50 : Isabelle Pierozak, Univ. Tours, Dynadiv : Figures vitalistes et imaginaires en matière de langues et de leurs approches. Une vivacité à interroger.
- 10h50-11h25 : Marie Pierrat, Univ. de Caen : « Le langage s'accomplit à travers les hommes comme pousse une plante. » Le langage dans l'œuvre de Mikel Dufrenne : un vitalisme poétique.

(pause)

session 5 : écologie et évolution en didactique des langues
- 11h40-12h15 : Véronique Castellotti, Marc Debono, Emmanuelle Huver, Univ. Tours, Dynadiv : Parallèles et métaphores écologiques en DDL : quels imaginaires ?
- 12h15-12h50 : Daria Zalesskaya, UNIL : L’enseignement du russe en France à travers des métaphores biologiques (première moitié du XX^ème siècle)

PAUSE DÉJEUNER

14h- 15h : Conférence: Jean-Léo Léonard, UPVM, Dipralang : Métaphores et apories en dialectologie gallo-romane et éloge de la rêverie en épistémologie.

(pause)

session 6 :  avatars de la biologisation
- 15h15-15h50 : Philippe Planchon, Univ. Tours, LLL : Comment penser le "naturel" des langues naturelles au prisme de la caractérisation des langues artificielles ?
- 15h50-16h25 : Malo Morvan, Univ. Tours, Dynadiv : Les discours sur les filiations et la famille de la langue bretonne : une généalogie de la généalogie
- 16h25-17h
Sophie Jollin-Berttocchi, Univ. Versailles Saint-Quentin, CHCSC : Rémanence et figement de la métaphore biologique au XXe siècle : approche comparative du discours linguistique et de la critique littéraire

(pause)

17h15 : clôture

This colloquium aims at questioning a set of discursive associations that assimilate languages to living beings. These are to be distinguished from the reductionist discourses of biolinguistics, which aim, for example, to explain our capacity for language by analysing the brain and the organism (Chomsky 1969, 1975), as well as from research in ecolinguistics, which questions the way in which linguistic forms or structures influence our relationship with the environment (Mühlhäusler 1983, Halliday 1990, cf. also Fill & Mühlhäusler 2001: 109-294).

This goal is in line with recent orientations in sociolinguistics, by critically questioning the epistemological choices as well as the ethical and political dimensions induced by linguistic descriptions (cf. among others the work of the Dynadiv team). The notion of "language", in particular, is re-interrogated, on the one hand by contesting its validity in describing the complexity of our language practices, and on the other hand by analysing its use in discourses (common, political, scientific) from the point of view of the social effects of such a categorisation (Canut 2007, Morvan 2022). Following these researches, the objectives of this colloquium is to enquire about what a biologising description of languages produces, both on scientific research and on the social treatment of language practices.

The discursive assimilations between languages and living beings are numerous and varied:

• Death and life: the categories of "living language" and "dead language" are part of the common vocabulary, as is the idea that a language can "die" if a set of language practices ceases to be practised by a group of speakers,

• Filiations: many of the most widely used representations of language history and linguistic typologies (e.g. on Wikipedia) use the phylogenetic tree to describe the history of languages as an evolutionary process, with its trunk, branches and twigs. Categorisations such as "mother tongue" or "daughter languages", or those describing language contacts in terms of "cross-breeding" and "hybridisation", are also relatively common.

• Vitality: when the Académie française describes inclusive writing as a "mortal danger" for the French language, it is taking up the idea that languages are entities that are likely to be in more or less good or bad health, which could be affected by external events. The same is true of descriptions that mobilise characteristics attributable to living beings to describe the importance of languages or their dynamics in diachrony (size, dynamism, etc.).

• Classification: the term 'wild languages' emerged in the colonial context to refer to non-European languages (Cuoq 1864, 1864), and there are also descriptions in which languages are compared either to plants grown in a garden or to herbs growing freely.

• Environment: in a context of growing and legitimate concern about the erosion of biodiversity, the theme of the "death of languages" is often associated with that of the extinction of species. There are also a number of conceptual proposals in linguistics that aim to address the dynamics of languages in terms of their relationship to their environment, as for living beings.

• Etc.

The aim is to analyse these associations from a variety of angles, from the point of view of their genesis in the history of ideas, their functions and social uses, and their epistemological contribution to a certain representation of human, cultural and language phenomena. Contributions are therefore expected from a number of disciplines: epistemology of the human sciences, history of linguistic ideas, philosophy, sociolinguistics, discourse analysis, language didactics, anthropology, sociology, etc.

1.Genealogy

The transfer of concepts between disciplines often constitutes a stimulating epistemological ferment while beginning to conceptualise an object whose definition has yet to be established, based on notions already understood elsewhere. Thus Freud drew inspiration from the descriptions of electromagnetism, which was emerging in his time, to conceive his first formulations of the unconscious, or Bourdieu used the vocabulary of magnetic fields to describe the interplay of social forces.

The sciences of language are situated in a dual, ambivalent relationship with biology : while on the one hand, like the other human sciences, they were constituted from a liberation from a strictly biological description of the human (Foucault 1966, Gusdorf 1960), on the other hand, the Darwinian model has exerted a strong influence on linguistic typologies and theories of diachronic linguistics. While Darwin himself already theorised a similarity of functioning between the evolution of living beings and that of languages (Darwin 1871), his theories were rapidly disseminated in the neo-Grammarian and comparative currents, notably under the influence of August Schleicher (1863, Aronoff 2017). The organicist motif is found in many authors (Bopp, Grimm, Bréal, Müller, Darmesteter, Dauzat, Whitney, Hovelaque, Chavée, etc.), and particularly in the Revue de linguistique et de philologie comparée (Desmet 1996, Klippi 2010) in a context where Romanticism (especially German Romanticism) strongly valued the idea of Nature (Krapf 1993) and the Living. In this intellectual climate, the organicization of languages is often linked to a quest for origin, and supports a racialist characterization of linguistic communities. Today, there are still proposals to explain the evolution of languages based on the Darwinian model (Bickerton 2000, Pinker 1994), which are often content to sidestep the criticisms levelled at the naturalist currents of the nineteenth century (Laks 2002, Auroux 2007), even though many elements are not comparable between the life of organisms and that of language forms (Andersen 2006).

In this sense, does the description of languages as living beings constitute the remnant of a founding act of linguistics by borrowing concepts from biology ? How can we identify and think about the theoretical rearrangements already made, and those still to come, in the re-appropriation by the language sciences of a conceptual model inherited from the life sciences ?

One may also ask how the reference to the living world has made it possible to mark the particularity of language phenomena by describing them as closed systems endowed with an organisation of their own. The notion of "organic form" as distinct from "mechanical form" was thus a leitmotif in the description of languages in the 19th century, and the term "morphology" designates both a discipline of the language sciences and another in the life sciences. Thus, we could trace the use of the terms "system" or "structure", which are omnipresent in linguistics, from both structuralist and cybernetic approaches, back to biology.

Moreover, to what extent did the adoption of biological terminology allow the discipline to give itself a guarantee of scientificity at a time when its justification as a science had not been acquired ? A good example is provided by the formulation of the "phonetic laws" by the neo-Grammarian school of the 19th century, which aimed to ensure that the findings of linguistics had the same degree of generality as those of the life sciences or the sciences of matter (Auroux 1979).

The question could be approached from a lexical point of view : since the language sciences have partly drawn on terms that originally had a biological meaning (starting with "tongue"/"gloss-"), to what extent have they resurrected the use of the terms in question, and what aspects of the original meaning would have been maintained in the meanings in use in the discipline ?

2.Functions and uses

What does this discursive assimilation of languages to biological entities produce in the social world ? The discourse of naturalization is one of the well-known opponents of sociological analyses, when it justifies inequalities by presenting them as founded in the nature of individuals or populations, and in this sense partly justified. The discourse of natural selection is also used to legitimise a market logic or competitive practices, including at the University. However, when it comes to languages, this naturalizing function does not seem so obvious. We should then interogate the links between linguistic vitalism and other figures of discourse on languages : the discourse of verbal hygiene (Cameron 1995), the patrimonialization of languages (Colonna 2022), the discourse on endangered languages (Heller & Duchêne 2007), the discourse of 'roots' (Bickerton 1981, Bettini 2017), etc.

We might therefore ask : what representation of language practices is promoted by a discourse that assimilates them to individuals capable of life, death, disease and reproduction ? In the context of the sixth mass extinction, where concern for biodiversity is legitimate, what rhetorical or symbolic return can be obtained by promoting a set of language practices categorised in terms of "language" and presenting them as potential victims of a loss of diversity similar to that of animal and plant species ? The aim is to propose a critical rereading, in the light of the presuppositions they mobilise and the socio-political interests to which they respond, of the alarmist discourses on the "death of languages" (Fishman 1991, Hagège 2000, Feltin-Pallas 2022) or of the processes of assimilation between language evolutions and the collapse of biodiversity (Skutnabb-Kangas & Harmon 2018), up to the merging of the expression "biocultural diversity" (https://biocultural-diversity.org/english). By refocusing on actors and social positions, we will then ask who disseminates this description of languages as living beings, who benefits or harms from it, which language practices are highlighted or invisibilised by it, what are its effects and reception on locutorates, or its translations in terms of institutional policies on languages.

In the continuity of this questioning, we can question the choices of names concerning the "linguistic revitalisation" approaches (Costa 2010, Costa 2013, Boitel 2021) : in the initiatives aiming at increasing the size or the language skills of a locutorship, what are the effects of a description of languages as endowed with a "vitality" on which one could politically intervene ? What kind of glottopolitical interventions are induced by such a discourse, which is more interested in the life of languages than in the life of the people who speak them, to whom is it addressed, whodoes it leave out, and what are its unthinkables ?

Similarly, attributions of naturalness justify hierarchies between language practices, some of which are considered 'natural', and therefore more 'original' or 'authentic', as opposed to others described as 'artificial' or even 'chemical' (Morvan 2017: 928-929). Here, the opposition 'natural/artificial' reinforces a set of hierarchies that is consistent with the connotations of categorisations such as 'native speaker' (on the side of naturalness, authenticity) / 'neo-speaker' (on the side of artificiality). Here, too, the network of associations between "natural", "good", "authentic" and its discursive valuations should be analysed, and the set of interests it serves in a context of socio-political antagonisms should be considered.

One could also ask how the presentation of languages as living beings makes it possible to attribute agentivity to them, i.e. metaphorically endow them with intentions, interests, responsibility for certain actions, etc. Thus, when we speak of "language wars" or "dominant languages", who is actually described as an actor in the war or domination, and who is invisibilised as an actor within such a description (Brubaker 2002) ?

3.Figurations and scholarly imaginaries

Beyond the history of ideas already mentioned, we can be interested in the transfer of concepts between disciplines in terms of scientific imagination. In this sense, biology or ecology could be considered as a reservoir of notions, processes and explanatory models from which the sciences of language can draw, among other symbolic elaborations, as suggestive representations of the world that could be transferred to the analysis of linguistic phenomena (Lechervel 2010, Léonard 2017). We would be interested in the metaphorical process (here the biological metaphor), not as something that is opposed to scientific reasoning, but as a modality that would make the realities to be described thinkable and figurable, starting from a repertoire of pre-existing descriptions (Ricoeur 1975).

For example, we note the arborescent representations of syntax, the methodological proposal of an "ecology of languages" to justify the recommendation to study them in relation to their environments of practice (Haugen 1972, Calvet 1999), or the one that consists in asking whether the conditions of appearance of creoles could not be thought of by analogy with the modes of emergence and diffusion of viruses (Mufwene 2001, 2008).

Thus, within the numerous studies on the relationship between languages and their "environment", it will be necessary to disentangle the polysemy of this term, which sometimes refers to the physical environment of linguistic communities (Sapir 1912), sometimes to a certain number of socio-institutional parameters determining current attitudes towards languages (Haugen 1972, Calvet 1999), and sometimes to its more contemporary meaning in relation to ecological concerns (Fill & Mühlhäusler 2001).

In this framework, the strict link between language and life sciences could be exceeded : we could be interested in the way in which other disciplines of the human sciences have drawn on biology : whether, in the social sciences, the metaphor of the "social body" which has been a commonplace since Antiquity, the distinction between mechanical and organic solidarities in Durkheim, the current of sociobiology (Wilson 1975), or the uses of the biological metaphor in psychoanalysis (Roussillon 2012). Furthermore, we could compare what the sciences of language import to biology and other disciplines : geography (the cartography of languages that assigns them to a territory), astronomy (the gravitational metaphor to think about the centre/periphery relationship), mathematics, mechanics (Pluche 1751, de Brosses 1765), chemistry (Trimaille & Matthey 2013), computer science, the metaphor of chess or waves in Saussure, etc.

The variety of discursive procedures used to assimilate languages to living beings can also be studied : strict identification remains rare, and comparisons can be made in the form of analogies, comparisons and metaphors.

Thus, in the study of movements claiming to be a form of biolinguistics, we find several regimes of identification between the two disciplines : pure and simple identification, the semantic exploitation of terms from biology in their suggestive character, the analogy between language phenomena and the evolution of living beings, or the theorization of a global causal model of adaptation of which natural selection and the evolution of languages would be two different applications (Badir, Polis, Provenzano 2016).

The aim will be to examine the effects of such borrowings in the conceptual field, by questioning the aspects of language that are (over)represented and those that are evicted. For example, recounting the diachrony of language practices with the terminological arsenal of life, death, growth, or evolution may constitute a way of extracting it from the field of history, and thus of proposing an approach to language as removed from any socio-historical context ("Art, science, philosophy, and religion all have a history ; language, or any other production of nature, admits only of growth." Müller 1873: 40, quoted and translated by Hafstein 2001).

4.Ontologies

The 'nature/culture' distinction has been profoundly challenged in recent decades (Latour 1991, Descola 2005), and a fruitful and abundant body of research has emerged to study the interactions and hybridisations between humans and non-humans, or the way in which we categorise such oppositional sets, in order to propose other intellectual and sensitive relationships to the world, notably by re-emphasising the notion of 'living' (Donna Haraway, Eduardo Viveiros de Castro, Vinciane Despret, Baptiste Morizot, etc.).). To what extent does such a theoretical constellation allow us to renew our analysis of discourses that understand languages as living beings ? What questions does it raise about our usual ways of drawing boundaries and categorising the human, the non-human and the living ?

Thus, one can analyse how the distinction 'language/dialect' may have served to draw a boundary between the 'civilised' and the 'uncivilised', distinguishing between them locutorates on the side of nature and those of culture (Bauman & Briggs 2003, Costa 2020). Similarly, presenting languages as living organisms allows for a research posture where, like biologists studying an organism from outside, linguists are positioned in exteriority and overhang towards their object. This would confer an authority to their knowledge about language, and thus a superiority towards the spontaneous knowledge of the speakers who practice the languages in question (Hafstein 2001), maintaining moreover the illusion that one could produce a linguistic analysis that would be situated outside any language (Laisis 1995).

Aronoff Mark, 2017, « Darwinism tested by the science of language », dans : On looking into words (and beyond), Cl. Bowern, L. Horn & R. Zanuttini (eds.), Berlin, Language Science Press, pp. 443–456.

Andersen Henning, 2006, « Synchrony, Diachrony, and Evolution », dans Competing Models of Linguistic Change : Evolution and Beyond, 0. Nedergaard Thomsen (éd.), Amsterdam-Philadelphie, Benjamins, pp. 59-90.

Auroux Sylvain, 1979, « La querelle des lois phonétiques », dans : Linguisticae Investigationes, n° 3/1, pp. 1-27.

Auroux Sylvain (éd.), 2007, Le naturalisme linguistique et ses désordres, revue Histoire, Épistémologie, Langage, tome n° 29, fascicule n°2.

Badir Sémir, Polis Stéphane, Provenzano François, 2016, « Actualités du modèle darwinien en linguistique », in Cl. Blanckaert, J. Léon et D. Samain (éds.), Modélisations et sciences humaines. Figurer, interpréter, simuler, Paris, L’Harmattan, 2016, pp. 271-288.

Bauman Richard & Briggs Charles L., 2003, Voices of Modernity, Language Ideologies and the Politics of Inequality, Cambridge University Press.

Bickerton Derek, 1981, Roots of Language, Karoma.

Bickerton Derek, 2000, Lingua ex Machina : Reconciling Darwin and Chomsky with the Human Brain, MIT Press.

Bettini Maurizio, 2017, Contre les racines, Champs Flammarion.

Boitel Quentin, 2021, Le náhuat fleurit, mais pas ici à Santo Domingo : Une sociolinguistique politique de la revitalisation de la langue náhuat (El Salvador, Amérique Centrale), thèse de doctorat, Paris V Descartes.

Brubaker Rogers, 2002, « Ethnicity without groups », dans Archives Européennes de Sociologie, 43-2, pp. 163-189.

Calvet Louis-Jean, 1999, Pour une écologie des langues du monde, Plon.

Cameron Deborah, 1995, Verbal Hygiene, Routledge.

Canut Cécile, 2007, Une langue sans qualité, Lambert-Lucas.

Chomsky Noam, 1969, La linguistique cartésienne, Seuil.

Chomsky Noam, 1975, The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory, Chicago University Press.

Colonna Romain, 2022, « La patrimonialisation des langues (minorées) : une voie (obligatoire) vers le marché ? », dans Langage et société, n° 175, 23-49.

Costa James, 2010, Revitalisation linguistique : discours, mythes et idéologies : approche critique de mouvements de revitalisation en Provence et en Ecosse, thèse de doctorat, Grenoble.

Costa James (éd.), 2013, Enjeux sociaux des mouvements de revitalisation linguistique, revue Langage & Société, n° 145.

Costa James, 2020, « Through the looking glass : Politics of language and nature, and the disqualification of vernacular forms of knowledge », dans Language, Culture and Society, 2 (1), pp. 126-134.

CuoqJean-André, 1864, Jugement erroné de Ernest Renan sur les langues sauvages, Montréal, Eusèbe Sénécal.

Cuoq Jean-André, 1866, Études philologiques sur quelques langues sauvages de l’Amerique, Montréal, Dawson, Brothers.

Darwin Charles, 1871, La descendance de l’homme et la sélection sexuelle, nombreuses rééditions, (cf. ch. 3, § Langage).

De Brosses Charles, 1765, Traité de la formation mécanique des langues, Saillant.

Descola Philippe, 2005, Par-delà nature et culture, Gallimard.

Desmet Piet, 1996, La linguistique naturaliste en France (1867-1922), Nature, origine et évolution du langage, Louvain-Paris, Peeters.

Feltin-PallasMichel, 2022, Sauvons les langues régionales !, Héliopoles.

Fill Alwin & Mühlhäusler Peter, 2001, The Ecolinguistics Reader : Language, Ecology and Environment, Continuum.

Fishman Joshua, 1991, Reversing language Shift : Theory and Practice of Assistance to Threatened Languages, Clevedon, Multilingual Matters.

Foucault Michel, 1966, Les mots et les choses, Gallimard.

Gusdorf Georges, 1960, Introduction aux sciences humaines, rééd. Ophrys 1974.

Hafstein Valdimar 2001 « Biological Metaphors in Folklore Scholarship. An Essay in the History of Ideas », dans : Nordic Yearbook of Folklore n° 57, pp. 7-32.

Hagège Claude, 2000, Halte à la mort des langues, Odile Jacob (cf. ch. 2).

Halliday Michael, 1990, « New Ways of Meaning : the Challenge to Applied Linguistics », dans : Journal of Applied Linguistics, n° 6, pp. 7-36.

Haugen Einar Ingvald, 1972, The Ecology of Language, Standford University Press.

Heller Monica & Duchêne Alexandre, 2007, Discourses of Endangerment, Ideology and Interest in the Defence of Languages, Continuum.

Klippi Carita, 2010, La vie du langage, la linguistique dynamique en France de 1864 à 1916, Lyon, ENS Éditions.

Krapf Veronika, 1993, Sprache als Organismus. Metaphern – Ein Schlüssel zu Jacob Grimms Sprachauffassung, Schriften der Brüder Grimm-Gesellschaft (Neue Folge), 26. Kassel : Brüder Grimm-Gesellschaft Kassel e.V.

Laisis Jaques, 1995, « Quel “discours de la méthode” pour les sciences humaines ? », dans : Tétralogiques, n° 5, pp. 5-13.

Laks Bernard, 2002, « Le comparatisme : de la généalogie à la génétique », in Langages, année 36, n° 146, L'origine du langage, pp. 19-45.

Latour Bruno, 1991, Nous n’avons jamais été modernes, La Découverte.

Lechevrel Nadège, 2010, Les approches écologiques en linguistique, Enquête critique, Louvain-la-Neuve, Academia-Bruylant.

Léonard Jean-Léo, 2017, « Écologie (socio)linguistique : évolution, élaboration et variation », dans : Langage et Société, n° 160-161 (2/3), pp. 267-82.

Morvan Malo, 2017, Définir la "langue bretonne". Discours concurrentiels d’origination et d’identification dans les paratextes des dictionnaires bretons, thèse de doctorat, Paris V Descartes.

Morvan Malo, 2022, Classer nos manières de parler, classer les gens, Éditions du commun.

Mufwene Salikoko, 2001, The ecology of language evolution, Cambridge University Press.

Mufwene Salikoko, 2008, Language Evolution : Contact, Competition and Change, Continuum.

Mühlhäusler Peter, 1983, « Talking about environmental Issues », dans : Language and Communication, 3/1 (éd. R. Harris), Oxford, Pergamon Press, pp. 71-82.

Müller Max, 1873, Lectures on the Science of Language, London, Longmans, Green, and Co.

Schleicher August, 1863, Die Darwinsche Theorie und die Sprachwissenschaft – offenes Sendschreiben an Herrn Dr. Ernst Haeckel, Weimar, Böhlau. (traduit en anglais en 1869 sous le titre Darwinism tested by the science of language par Alex V. W. Bikkers).

Pinker Steven, 1994, L’instinct du langage, Odile Jacob.

Pluche Noël-Antoine, 1751, La Mécanique des langues et l'art de les enseigner, Veuve Estienne et fils.

Ricœur Paul, 1975, La métaphore vive, Seuil.

Roussillon René, 2012, « Fonctions des métaphores biologiques », dans Libres cahiers pour la psychanalyse, n° 26, pp. 59-82.

Sapir Edward, 1912, « Language and Environment », dans : American Anthropologist, n° 14, pp. 226-242.

Skutnabb-Kangas Tove & Harmon David, 2018, « Biological diversity and language diversity : parallels and differences », in Handbook of Ecolinguistics, H.Penz & A. Fill (éd.), New York, Routledge, pp. 11-25.

Trimaille Cyrille & Matthey Marinette, 2013, « Catégorisations », dans : Sociolinguistique du contact : dictionnaire des termes et concepts, J. Simonin & S. Wharton (éds.), Lyon, ENS Éditions, pp. 95-122.

Wilson Edward Osborne, 1975, Sociobiology, The New Synthesis, Cambridge, Harvard University Press.

by mail : vitalismes-linguistiques@univ-tours.fr

- Sémir Badir - Lemme - Univ. Liège (BE)
- Quentin Boitel - Cerlis - Univ. Paris
- James Costa - ILPGA - Univ. Sorbonne nouvelle
- Marc Debono - DYNADIV - Univ. Tours
- Thierry Deshayes - Univ. Neuchâtel (CH)
- Didier de Robillard - DYNADIV - Univ. Tours
- Aurélia Elalouf - LiLPa - Univ. Strasbourg
- Laurent Gerbier - InTRu - Univ. Tours
- Luca Greco - CREM - Univ. Lorraine
- Valdimar Hafstein - Univ. of Iceland (ISL)
- Emmanuelle Huver - DYNADIV - Univ. Tours
- Narcís Iglésias - HTL - Universitat de Girona (ES)
- Carita Klippi - HTL - Tampere University (FIN)
- Jean-Léo Léonard - DIPRALANG - Univ. Paul-Valéry Montpellier 3
- Joanna Lorilleux - DYNADIV - Univ. Tours
- Noémie Marignier - CLESTHIA - Univ. Sorbonne Nouvelle
- Marinette Matthey - LIDILEM - Univ. Grenoble Alpes
- Malo Morvan - DYNADIV - Univ. Tours
- Isabelle Pierozak - DYNADIV - Univ. Tours
- Stéphane Polis- Univ. Liège (BE)
- François Provenzano - Genach - Univ. Liège (BE)
- Sophie Richard - LLL - Univ. Tours
- Pierre-Yves Testenoire - HTL - Sorbonne Université
- Denis Thouard, centre G. Simmel - EHESS
- Adam Wilson - IDEA - Univ. Lorraine