Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T05:44:00.711Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Local meaning-negotiation, activity types, and the current-discourse-space model

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 November 2015

ANDREAS LANGLOTZ
ANDREAS LANGLOTZ*
Affiliation:
University of Basel
*
†Address for correspondence: andreas.langlotz@unibas.ch
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Any approach to interaction is confronted with the dilemma of reconciling the empirical fact that meaning is locally and interactionally managed, as shown by conversation analysis, with the fact that conversations are subject to genres that impose conventionalized expectations for allowable contributions and inferences, as advocated by the ethnography of communication. This theoretical paper attempts to overcome this challenge by integrating Langacker’s current-discourse-space model with Barsalou’s dynamic model of situated conceptualization. With reference to these frameworks, the paper sketches a grounded socio-cognitive model of meaning construction in context that combines the situated interactional negotiation of meaning with the discursive knowledge that underlies speech genres in the form of genre-simulators. To substantiate and illustrate the theoretical considerations, the paper draws on two extracts from spoken tourist-information transactions.

Keywords

conversation analysisethnography of communicationcurrent-discourse-space modelsituated conceptualizationgenre-simulator
Type
Research Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 7 , Issue 4: Special issue on Cognitive Linguistics and Interactional Discourse , December 2015 , pp. 515 - 545
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

references

Barsalou, L. W. (1991). Deriving categories to achieve goals. In Bower, G. H., (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 1–64). San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanowich.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577–609.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. (2003). Situated simulation in the human conceptual system. Language and Cognitive Processes, 5(6), 513–562.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. (2005). Situated conceptualization. In Cohen, H. & Lefebvre, C. (Eds.), Handbook of categorization in cognitive science (pp. 619–650). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. (2010). Grounded cognition: past, present, and future. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2, 716–724.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W., & Prinz, J. J. (1997). Mundane creativity in perceptual symbol systems. In Ward, Th. B., Smith, S. M., & Vaid, J. (Eds.), Creative thought: an investigation of conceptual structures and processes (pp. 267–307). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysing genre: language use in professional settings. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bhatia, V. K. (2004). Worlds of written discourse: a genre-based view. London: Continuum International.Google Scholar
Bhatia, V. K. (2008). Genre analysis, ESP and professional practice. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 161–174.Google Scholar
Bless, H., Fiedler, K., & Strack, F. (2004). Social cognition: how individuals construct social reality. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S. (2005). Rethinking genre: discursive events as a social interactional phenomenon. In Fitch, K. L. & Sanders, R. E. (Eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction (pp. 275–300). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing political discourse: theory and practice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar: syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Decety, J., & Grèzes, J. (2006). The power of simulation: imagining one’s own and other’s behaviour. Brain Research, 1079, 4–14.Google Scholar
Drew, P. (2005). Conversation analysis. In Fitch, K. L. & Sanders, R. E. (Eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction (pp. 71–102). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (Eds.) (1992a). Talk at work: interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (1992b). Introduction. In Drew, P. & Heritage, J. (Eds.), Talk at work: interaction in institutional settings (pp. 3–65). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: an introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. (1997). Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (1998). Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22(2), 133–187.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Filliettaz, L., & Bronckart, J.-P. (Eds.) (2005). L’analyse des actions et des discours en situation de travail. Concepts, méthodes et applications. Louvain-La-Neuve: Peeters, Coll. Bibliothèque des Cahiers de l’Institut de Linguistique de Louvain.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: a construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Harder, P. (1996). Functional semantics: a theory of meaning, structure and tense in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2001). Goffman, Garfinkel and conversation analysis. In Wetherell, M., Taylor, S., & Yates, S. J. (Eds.), Discourse theory and practice: a reader (pp. 47–56). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2005). Conversation analysis and institutional talk. In Fitch, K. L. & Sanders, R. E. (Eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction (pp. 103–147). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. (1964). Introduction: toward ethnographies of communication. In Gumperz, J. J. & Hymes, D. (Eds.), The ethnography of communication (pp. 1–34). Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. (1972). Models of the interaction of language and social life. In Gumperz, J. J. and Hymes, D. (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: the ethnography of communication (pp. 35–71). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2006). Language, mind, and culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 1: theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. II: descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2001). Discourse in cognitive grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 12(2), 143–188.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: a basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langlotz, A. (2015). Creating social orientation through language. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1979). Activity types and language. Linguistics, 17, 365–399.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1992). Activity types and language. In Drew, P. & Heritage, J. (Eds.), Talk at work: interaction in institutional settings (pp. 66–100). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2006). Cognition at the heart of human interaction. Discourse Studies, 8(1), 85–93.Google Scholar
Lillis, T. M. (2006). Communicative competence. In Brown, K. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (pp. 666–673). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondada, L. (Ed.) (2006). Interactions en situations de travail. No spécial de la Revue Française de Linguistique Appliquée, XI-2, décembre.Google Scholar
Oakley, T., & Hougaard, A. (Eds.) (2008). Mental spaces in discourse and interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Östman, J.-O., & Fried, M. (Eds.) (2005). Construction grammars: cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pecher, D., & Zwaan, R. A. (2005). Grounding cognition: the role of perception and action in memory, language and thinking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Philipsen, G., & Coutu, L. M. (2005). The ethnography of speaking. In Fitch, K. L. & Sanders, R. E. (Eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction (pp. 355–380). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organisation of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.Google Scholar
Van Dijk, T. A. (1990). Social cognition and discourse. In Giles, H. & Robinson, W. P. (Eds.), Handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 163–183). Oxford: Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mediated action. In Bechtel, W. & Graham, G. (Eds.), A companion to cognitive science (pp. 518–525). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Zwaan, R. A. (2004). The immersed experiencer: toward an embodied theory of language comprehension. In Ross, B. H. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 35–62). York: Academic Press.Google Scholar