Language constructing language: the implications of reflexivity for linguistic theory

Taylor, Talbot J.

doi:10.1016/s0388-0001(00)00016-4

Cited by 53 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Taylor's point is that metadiscourse is a constitutive dimension of all human communication and cannot be understood as a mere addition to ARTICLE PALGRAVE COMMUNICATIONS | DOI: 10.1057DOI: 10. /palcomms.2017 supposedly "basic" forms of communication and language use such as naming or pointing (Taylor, 2000).…”

Section: Four Concepts Of Reflexivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Reflexivity in the transdisciplinary field of critical discourse studies

Zienkowski

2017

Palgrave Commun

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article outlines an agenda for critical discourse studies that reserves a place of honour for the notion of reflexivity. It draws on four concepts of reflexivity developed in the social sciences: reflexivity as a general feature of interaction and subjectivity; as a methodological praxis; as a property of discursive and non-discursive systems; and as a key feature of late modernity. Reflexivity is considered in terms of acts of interpretive movement. Social actors, organizations and systems throw reflexive loops around themselves, around others, as well as around spatial, temporal, linguistic, cognitive, social and historical dimensions of contextual reality. All social entities engage in the Sisyphean task of fixing social reality, trying to grasp it with a porous and amorphous semiotic net, shaping interpretive reality in the process. Reflexive loops can leave ripples on the surface of language and communication for others to pick up and engage with. Through metadiscursive acts, interlocutors can then engage with the meanings that fix who and what they are in an unequal and power-infused world whose boundaries can only be imagined through interpretive and critical praxis. Reflexivity is a precondition for the articulation of critique and should be considered as a key concept in the field of discourse studies. This paper is published as part of a collection on discourse studies.

show abstract

Section: Four Concepts Of Reflexivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Reflexivity in the transdisciplinary field of critical discourse studies

Zienkowski

2017

Palgrave Commun

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First, there is little merit in a semiotic stance to human cognition. Given the reflexivity of language (Taylor 2000), this heuristic already serves folk psychology and orthodox linguistics. Language enables us to tell people what we say, remember and believe and, at one level, why and how we attend, understand or act.…”

Section: Biosemiosis and Intellectual Powers?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Meaning in Nature: Organic Manufacture?

Cowley

2008

Biosemiotics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper examines Marcello Barbieri's (2007) Introduction to Biosemiotics. Highlighting debate within the biosemiotic community, it focuses on what the volume offers to those who explain human intellect in relation to what Turing called our 'physical powers.' In scrutinising the basis of world-modelling, parallels and contrasts are drawn with other work on embodied-embedded cognition. Models dominate biology. Is this a qualitative fact or does it point to biomechanisms? In evaluating the 18 contributions, it is suggested that the answers will shape the field. First, they will decide if biochemistry and explanatory reduction can be synergised by biosemantics. Second, they will show if our intellectual powers arise from biology. Does thinking use-not a language faculty-but what Markoš and colleagues call semiosis by the living? Resolution of such issues, it is suggested, can change how we view cognition. Above all, if the biomechanists win the day, cultural models can be regarded as extending natural meaning. On such a view, biomechanisms prompt us to act and perceive as we model our own natural models. This fits Craik's vision: intellect gives us the alphanumerical 'symbols' that allow thoughts to have objective validity. For the biomechanist, this is explained-not by brains alone-but, rather, by acting under the constraints of historically extended sensoria.

show abstract

“…Linguistic reflexivity, that is the use of language to talk about language, is a fundamental element of everyday linguistic interaction (see Berry, this volume Harris, 1998;Taylor, 2000). However, the classroom, and in particular the L1 English classroom, involves its own discourse patterns (see Baker & Freebody, 1989;Rampton et al, 2002), and these can make demands on metalanguage that are different from those of everyday linguistic interaction, as well as considerably raising the incidence of use of what may be regarded as typically 'everyday' metalanguage.…”

Section: The Metalanguage Of the L1 English Classroommentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Lay language users tend to come to understand that such terminology is used to 'label' language; for example, 'table is a noun'; or that terminology is specialised and they do not understand it, for example onomatopoeia, colon, apostrophe (see Davis, 2001Davis, , 2003. It is therefore very important to consider what is 'lay' metalanguage, and what is 'professional' metalanguage to understand that a two-tier system of metalanguage appears to have developed (see Davis, 2001Davis, , 2003Harris, 1996Harris, , 1998Taylor, 2000Taylor, , 2003 for further discussion).…”

Section: Language and Metalanguagementioning

confidence: 99%

Metalanguage in L1 English-speaking 12-year-olds: Which Aspects of Writing Do They Talk About?

Robinson

2005

Language Awareness

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Traditional psycholinguistic approaches to metalinguistic awareness in L1 learners elicit responses containing metalanguage that demonstrates metalinguistic awareness of pre-determined aspects of language knowledge. This paper, which takes a more ethnographic approach, demonstrates how pupils are able to engage their own focus of metalanguage when reflecting on their everyday learning activities involving written language. What is equally significant is what their metalanguage choices reveal about their understanding and application of written language concepts.

show abstract

Language constructing language: the implications of reflexivity for linguistic theory

Cited by 53 publications

References 6 publications

Reflexivity in the transdisciplinary field of critical discourse studies

Reflexivity in the transdisciplinary field of critical discourse studies

Meaning in Nature: Organic Manufacture?

Metalanguage in L1 English-speaking 12-year-olds: Which Aspects of Writing Do They Talk About?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About