Call for papers

The 40^th and 41^st cycles of the PhD Program in Linguistic, Literary and Intercultural Studies in European and Extra-European Perspectives at the University of Milan are organizing the biennial doctoral conference “(S)confinamenti. Forme, funzioni e crisi dei binarismi.” This conference aims to reflect from a multidisciplinary perspective on the concept of binarism, understood not as a mere pair of elements, but as a relational configuration in which terms are mutually defined, establishing relationships of tension and complementarity. In particular, the conference seeks to examine the ways in which binarisms appear and how they produce meaning, the historical and theoretical conditions that have determined and still determine their crisis, and their possible reconfigurations within linguistic, literary, and cultural systems.

Linguistics has traditionally relied on binary structures to model the functioning of language. Saussure already defined distinctive oppositions as the structural pillars of the linguistic system (signifier/signified, langue/parole), while Jakobson formalized their role in phonology through binary features, thereby turning opposition into a genuine structural matrix. Likewise, Chomsky consolidated fundamental dichotomies (competence/performance, grammar/use, surface structure/deep structure) that long shaped theoretical debate. However, the categorical nature of such oppositions has gradually been called into question. A paradigmatic example is cognitive linguistics (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980; Croft & Cruse, 2004), which places meaning at the core of grammatical structures, thereby overcoming not only the opposition between lexicon and grammar but also the assumption that linguistic and extralinguistic knowledge and abilities constitute dichotomous entities. In light of these premises Construction Grammar (cf. Fillmore, Kay & O’Connor, 1988; Goldberg, 2006) has in turn enabled the overcoming of a modular view of language, by proposing a non-dichotomous reinterpretation of the grammar-lexicon duality.

Similarly, within theories of language contact, phenomena of hybridization emerge that destabilize clear-cut oppositions between linguistic varieties, giving rise to intermediate spaces and complex systems. Examples include linguistic borrowing (Haugen, 1950) and code-switching (Bullock & Toribio, 2009; Gardner-Chloros, 2009), both resulting from and reflecting the interactions between distinct linguistic varieties and identities. Other forms of linguistic interference, including the development of pidgin and creole languages, further contribute to the dissolution of the dichotomy of separate linguistic systems.

In the field of gender studies, the binary conception of sex has been progressively challenged, giving way to an understanding of gender as a discursive process situated within relations and enacted through performance (Butler, 1990). Within this framework, language emerges as one of the primary spaces in which identities are negotiated and made visible. Significant developments in this direction stem from studies on multimodality and digital communication, which demonstrate how the construction of the self takes place through the interaction of verbal, visual, and performative modes.

Translation, understood as a creative practice that establishes a dialogic relationship between different linguistic and cultural systems (Hutcheon, 2006), constitutes one of the domains in which dynamics of crossing and negotiation become particularly visible. It entails an act of mediation that requires balancing respect for alterity with the intelligibility of discourse, despite interlinguistic and intercultural differences (Bassnett, 2011). In this sense, translation cannot be reduced to a simple binary transfer from one code to another (with the attendant risk of stereotyping) but rather as a process that foregrounds and amplifies the linguistic and symbolic nuances of the source text.

Binarisms have been widely explored in literary studies as a structure of opposition, as well as a logic of complementarity and mirroring. One of its most recurring expressions is the figure of the double through which literature stages the dynamics of division and identity duplication. In this way, the Doppelgänger serves as the main method for representing crises of the self: Rank (1925) interprets it as the manifestation of a psychic and identitarian conflict, whereas Freud (1919) associates it with the dimension of the uncanny stemming from the return of the repressed. The multiplication of the self, therefore, is not merely an expression of dualism but it also becomes a tool through which literature explores the modern subject’s fragmentation and plurality.

Literary theory has long employed binary structures to classify genres and textual systems. These “architectures of the double” of Aristotelian origin (high/low, epic/novel, tragedy/comedy) both reflect and produce hierarchies and power relations in processes of canonization. More recently, instead, different turns – namely, Material (Latour, 1991), Cultural (Jameson, 1998), Affective (Ahmed, 2010), and Visual (Boehm & Mitchell, 2013) – have progressively shifted attention toward forms of writing that challenge traditional generic taxonomies, cross linguistic and cultural boundaries, and give rise to plural narrative identities. 

Visual and Intermedial Studies have made a decisive contribution by investigating phenomena of interaction, contamination, and migration across media (Rajewsky, 2018; Kozak, 2015). Similarly, Cultural Studies have shown that binarisms are not natural or stable entities, but rather the product of discursive practices and historical processes of meaning-making (Hall, 2003). It has been emphasized that many of such oppositions are rooted in the epistemological frameworks of Western modernity which have often structured thought and interpretation of the world through dichotomies (Quijano, 1997). Given these recent developments, there is increasing urgency within current scholarship to move beyond binary structures. Oppositions no longer figure as closed and self-sufficient pairs, but rather as dynamic fields shaped by Contact Zones (Pratt, 1992), Borders (Anzaldúa, 1987) and Third Spaces (Bhabha, 1988). Binarisms are thus being rethought not simply as structuring tools, but as dynamic spaces where tensions, crossings, and transformations unfold.

Thematic Areas

PhD candidates, postdoctoral researchers, and early-career scholars are invited to submit proposals that examine binarisms not as static structures, but as dynamic systems. Contributions may address, but are not limited to, the following thematic areas:

• Toward an organic view of language: approaches to overcome the modular conception of language;

• Language contact: encounters, conflicts, and the overcoming of linguistic and cultural divergences;

• Deconstructing gender binarism: intersections of theory, language, and multimodality;

• Translating alterity: the enhancement and negotiation of linguistic, literary, and cultural nuances;

• Figures of ambiguity: applications, crises, and renegotiations of the motif of the double;

• Binarisms under scrutiny: critical perspectives, situated epistemologies, and the deconstruction of normative forms of knowledge;

• Beyond binarisms: discursive, textual, and multimodal practices that develop counter-narratives and alternative models.

---

Submission Guidelines

Proposals are welcomed for 20-minute presentations. Conference languages are Italian and English.

To apply, participants are required to submit the following materials by 30^th June 2026 to the email address: convegno.binarismi@unimi.it.

An anonymous Word file, named [Proposal_Binarism_2026], containing the following information:

• Title of the proposal;
• Abstract (in Italian or English), maximum 250 words, in Times New Roman 12 pt, 1.5 line spacing;
• Keywords (4);
• Bibliography (maximum 10 references);

A PDF file, named [Bio_SurnameName_2026], containing the following information:

• Author’s full name;
• Institutional affiliation;
• Email address;
• Short bio (maximum 150 words).

---

Fees

Participation in both the conference and the call for papers is free of charge. Travel and accommodation expenses will be covered by the participants.

---

Important Dates

Proposal’s submission deadline: 30^th June 2026

Notification of acceptance: 31^st July 2026

Conference dates: 2^nd-3^rd December 2026

---

References

Ahmed, S. (2010). The cultural politics of emotion (2nd ed.). Edinburgh University Press.

Anzaldúa, G. (1987). Borderlands – la Frontera: The new mestiza (2a ed.). Aunt Lute Books. Bhabha, H.(1988). The Location of Culture. Routledge.

Bassnett, S. (2011). Reflections on translation (1st ed.). Multilingual Matters.

Boehm, G., & Mitchell, W. J. (2013). “Pictorial versus iconic turn: Two letters.” In The pictorial turn (pp. 8-26). Routledge.

Bullock, B. E., & Toribio, A. J. (2009). Themes in the study of code-switching. In B. E. Bullock & A. J. Toribio (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of linguistic code-switching (pp. 1–18). Cambridge University Press.

Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: feminism and the subversion of identity. Routledge.

Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge University Press.

Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 64, 501–538.

Freud, S. (2012). Das Unheimliche (1929). Europäischer Literaturverlag.

Gardner-Chloros, P. (2009). Code-switching (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.

Hall, S. (2003). Of Diaspora: Identities and Cultural Mediations. Belo Horizonte: UFMG. 

Haugen, E. (1950). The analysis of linguistic borrowing. Language, 26(2), 210–231.

Hutcheon, L. (2006). A theory of adaptation. Routledge.

Jameson, F. (1998). The Cultural Turn: Selected Writings on the Postmodern (1983-1998). Verso Books.

Kozak, C. (2015). Tecnopoéticas Argentinas. Archivio blando de arte y tecnología. Caja Negra.

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.

Pratt, M. (1992).  Imperial Eyes: Travel Writing and Transculturation. Routledge.

Quijano, A. (1997). La colonialidad del saber: eurocentrismo y ciencias sociales perspectivas latinoamericanas. Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales CLACSO.

Rank, O. (1925). Der Doppelgänger. Eine Psychoanalytische Studie. International Psychoanalytic University Berlin. 

Rajewsky, I. (2005) Intermediality, intertextuality, and remediation: A literary perspective on intermediality. Intermédialités/ Itermediality, 6 : 43-64. https://doi.org/10.7202/1005505ar.