Why blend conversation analysis with cognitive grammar?

Etelämäki, Marja; Visapää, Laura

doi:10.1075/prag.24.3.03ete

Cited by 10 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The challenge of a usage-based approach is to determine the relationship between use and conventionalization, on the one hand, and between conventionalization and internalization, on the other. It is clear that a certain amount of internalization is necessary for meaningful linguistic communication (see also Etelämäki & Visapää 2014). In particular, the semantic complexity of the most mundane discussions suggests that linguistic meanings rely to a substantial degree on complex and conventionalized patterns of conceptualization (see Section 3.1 above).…”

Section: The Phenomenological Approach To Non-objective Meaningmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Further, Cognitive Linguistics study has also recently started to show a growing interest in the social nature of linguistic meaning (e.g. Sinha 1999; Zlatev 2010; see also Etelämäki et al 2009, Etelämäki & Jaakola 2009, Etelämäki & Visapää 2014, Möttönen 2016). What has been lacking in this undertaking, however, is a theoretical model that explicitly affirms and concentrates on the interdependence that exists between the social constitution of linguistic meaning and the non-objectivity of that linguistic meaning.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Dependence of construal on linguistic and pre-linguistic intersubjectivity

Möttönen¹

2016

Nord J Linguist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In current linguistics, non-objective (i.e. perspectival or construed) facets of linguistic meaning are often explained as properties or correlates of cognitive phenomena. Such outlook, exemplified by Langacker's (1987, 2008) Cognitive Grammar, stands in contrast vis-à-vis the necessary social character of language in general and linguistic meaning in particular. Accordingly, a viable semantic theory should seek to explain non-objective facets of meaning as an intersubjectively valid semantic resource that is an integral part of linguistic meaning at large. In this paper, such theory is proposed based on the phenomenological notions of intentionality and intersubjectivity. I will argue that the non-objectivity of linguistic meaning is most realistically explained as conventionalized intentionality, i.e. object-directedness of conscious experience. The conventionalization of intentionality, in turn, suggests a complex manner in which non-objective meaning motivates the selection of a linguistic expression within an intersubjective context. Finally, this intimate relationship between non-objective meaning and context suggests the feasibility of extending Cognitive Grammar's notion of construal into analysis of non-objective meaning as an intersubjective, context-sensitive facet of interaction (see Etelämäki et al. 2009 for a similar argument).

show abstract

Section: The Phenomenological Approach To Non-objective Meaningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dependence of construal on linguistic and pre-linguistic intersubjectivity

Möttönen¹

2016

Nord J Linguist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is a major diff erence with many other research paradigms that are much more concerned with the details of particular pieces of interactional data, most notably Conversation Analysis, and which in turn often shy away from generalizing over instances. This fundamental diff erence in focus and primary interest, among other factors mentioned, most likely contributes to the fact that interactionally minded researchers are by and large keeping their distance to CL and vice versa (for approaches arguing for fruitful synergies between CA and Cognitive Grammar, however, see Deppermann, 2007Deppermann, , 2012Etelämäki & Visapää, 2014 ; and this special issue's papers by Langlotz and Fischer).…”

Section: On Co Gnitive Linguistics' Suitability For Inter Action Resementioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive Linguistics and interactional discourse: time to enter into dialogue

Zima

Brône

2015

Lang. cogn.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Usage-based theories hold that the sole resource for language users’ linguistic systems is language use (Barlow & Kemmer, 2000; Langacker, 1988; Tomasello, 1999, 2003). Researchers working in the usage-based paradigm, which is often equated with cognitive-functional linguistics (e.g., Ibbotson, 2013, Tomasello, 2003), seem to widely agree that the primary setting for language use is interaction, with spontaneous face-to-face interaction playing a primordial role (e.g., Bybee, 2010; Clark, 1996; Geeraerts & Cuyckens, 2007; Langacker, 2008; Oakley & Hougaard, 2008; Zlatev, 2014). It should, then, follow that usage-based models of language are not only compatible with evidence from communication research but also that they are intrinsically grounded in authentic, multi-party language use in all its diversity and complexities. This should be a logical consequence, as a usage-based understanding of language processing and human sense-making cannot be separated from the study of interaction. However, the overwhelming majority of the literature in Cognitive Linguistics (CL) does not deal with the analysis of dialogic data or with issues of interactional conceptualization. It is our firm belief that this is at odds with the interactional foundation of the usage-based hypothesis. Furthermore, we are convinced that an ‘interactional turn’ is not only essential to the credibility and further development of Cognitive Linguistics as a theory of language and cognition as such. Rather, CL-inspired perspectives on interactional language use may provide insights that other, non-cognitive approaches to discourse and interaction are bound to overlook. To that aim, this special issue brings together four contributions that involve the analysis of interactional discourse phenomena by drawing on tools and methods from the broad field of Cognitive Linguistics.

show abstract

Introduction: Discourse, grammar and intersubjectivity

Etelämäki¹

2016

Nord J Linguist

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This special issue includes a collection of papers on language and intersubjctivity. There are two paradigms in linguistic approaches to intersubjectivity; cognitive linguistics and interactional linguistics, but these two paradigms hardly ever meet. This is due to the fact that these paradigms have opposing views on cognition and mental events. However, both these paradigms draw from phenomenology: whereas cognitive linguistic approaches to intersubjectivity have their basis on Husserl's philosophy, interactional linguistics is influenced by ethnomethodological conversation analysis and the philosophy of Schutz. Despite the apparent differences between these approaches, there are convergences, too. Moreover, both approaches are needed for a full account of language and human intersubjectivity. Oslo, P.O. Box 1102, Blindern, 0317 Oslo, Norway. m.i.etelamaki@iln.uio.no Human mind, language, and action are nowadays understood and studied as thoroughly social and intersubjective phenomena in many fields of research; simultaneously, human sociality and intersubjectivity per se have become topics for multidisciplinary studies. At present, studies concerning human intersubjectivity have at least three foci. One approach focusses on intersubjectivity as a property of the human mind, drawing on research in philosophy, psychology, and cognitive and neuroscientific studies (e.g. Bråten 2006, Hari & Kujala 2009, Rochat, PassosFerreira & Salem 2009, Zahavi & Rochat 2015. Another focus is on language and intersubjectivity as cognitive phenomena (e.g. Verhagen 2005Verhagen , 2008. The third line of research has its roots in sociology, where intersubjectivity is understood as an achievement of organized social interaction (e.g. Heritage 1984, Schegloff 1992, Sidnell 2014. Within this approach, the focus is on intersubjectivity as situated in the social world rather than the human mind. Drawing on the methodology of conversation analysis, this approach is radically empirical, emphasizing the importance of recorded data from authentic interactions. Keywords cognitive linguistics, conversation analysis, interactional linguistics, intersubjectivity, phenomenology Marja Etelämäki, Department of Linguistics and Scandinavian Studies, University ofRegardless of a shared understanding of humans as thoroughly social beings, these three lines of research do not easily meet. While psychological studies have, M A R J A E T E LÄ MÄ K Ito a large extent, neglected the role of language in the constitution of human intersubjectivity, 1 cognitive linguistic studies of language and intersubjectivity are either purely theoretical or focus on language as a means for sharing experience at the cognitive level, neglecting the affective and action-oriented levels of human interaction. On the other hand, interactionally oriented empirical studies on language and intersubjectivity mainly neglect -some even reject -the cognitive dimension. The result is that there is only a handful of empirical studies that approach grammar as a socio-cognitive, prof...

show abstract

Why blend conversation analysis with cognitive grammar?

Cited by 10 publications

References 46 publications

Dependence of construal on linguistic and pre-linguistic intersubjectivity

Dependence of construal on linguistic and pre-linguistic intersubjectivity

Cognitive Linguistics and interactional discourse: time to enter into dialogue

Introduction: Discourse, grammar and intersubjectivity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About