Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:08:49.815Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dependence of construal on linguistic and pre-linguistic intersubjectivity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 August 2016

Tapani Möttönen
Tapani Möttönen*
Affiliation:
Väinämöisenkatu 5 a 13, 00100 Helsinki, Finland. [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

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).

Keywords

intentionalityintersubjectivityCognitive Grammarconstrualnon-objective meaningphenomenology
Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 39 , Special Issue 2: Discourse, Grammar and Intersubjectivity , October 2016 , pp. 209 - 229
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Nordic Association of Linguistics 2016 

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

Astington, Janet W. 2006. The developmental interdependence of theory of mind and language. In Enfield & Levinson (eds.), 179–206.Google Scholar
Banchetti-Robino, Marina. 1997. Husserl's theory of language as calculus ratiocinator. Synthese 112, 303–321.Google Scholar
Blomberg, Johan & Zlatev, Jordan. 2013. Actual and non-actual motion: Why experientialist semantics needs phenomenology (and vice versa). Phenomenology and Cognitive Science 13, 395–418.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William & Cruse, D. Alan. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
De Bruin, Leon & de Haan, Sanneke. 2012. Enactivism & social cognition: In search of the whole story. Journal of Cognitive Semiotics 4(1), 225–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drummond, John J. 2012. Intentionality without representationalism. In Zahavi (ed.), 115–133.Google Scholar
Enfield, Nick & Levinson, Stephen C. (eds.). 2006. The Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition, and Human Interaction, 179–206. London: Berg Press.Google Scholar
Etelämäki, Marja, Herlin, Ilona, Jaakola, Minna & Visapää, Laura. 2009. Kielioppi käsitteistyksenä ja toimintana. Kognitiivista kielioppia ja keskusteluanalyysiä yhdistämässä [Grammar as conceptualization and as action: Combining cognitive grammar and conversation analysis]. Virittäjä 113(2), 162–187.Google Scholar
Etelämäki, Marja & Jaakola, Minna. 2009. ‘Tota’ ja puhetilanteen todellisuus [Tota and the reality of speech situation]. Virittäjä 113(2), 188–212.Google Scholar
Etelämäki, Marja & Visapää, Laura. 2014. Why blend Conversation Analysis with Cognitive Grammar? In Ritva Laury, Marja Etelämäki & Elisabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds.), Approaches to Grammar for Interactional Linguistics: Special issue of Pragmatics 24(3), 477–506.Google Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan. 2009. How Words Mean: Lexical Concepts, Cognitive Models, and Meaning Construction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gallagher, Shaun. 2012. On the possibility of naturalizing phenomenology. In Zahavi (ed.), 70–93.Google Scholar
Gallagher, Shaun & Hutto, Daniel. 2008. Understanding others through primary interaction. In Zlatev et al. (eds.), 17–38.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles. 1981. Conversational Organization: Interaction between Speakers and Hearers. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles. 2000. Action and Embodiment within Situated Human Interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 32, 1489–1522.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles. 2006. Human sociality as mutual orientation in a rich interactive environment: Multimodal utterances and pointing in aphasia. In Enfield & Levinson (eds.), 96–125.Google Scholar
Husserl, Edmund. 2001a [1900–1901]. Logical Investigations, vol. 1: Prolegomena to Pure Logic; Expression and Meaning; The Ideal Unity of the Species and Modern Theories of Abstraction (translated by J. N. Findlay from the second German edition of Logische Untersuchungen). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Husserl, Edmund. 2001b [1901]. Logical Investigations, vol. 2: On the Theory of Wholes and Parts; The Distinction between Independent and Non-independent Meanings; On Intentional Experiences and their ‘Contents’; Elements of a Phenomenological Elucidation of Knowledge (translated by J. N. Findlay from the second German edition of Logische Untersuchungen). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Itkonen, Esa. 1978. Grammatical Theory and Metascience: A Critical Inquiry into the Philosophical and Methodological Foundations of ‘Autonomous’ Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Itkonen, Esa. 1980. Qualitative vs. quantitative analysis in linguistics. In Perry, Thomas (ed.), Evidence and Argumentation in Linguistics, 334–366. Berlin: deGruyter.Google Scholar
Itkonen, Esa. 1997. The social ontology of linguistic meaning. In Haukioja, Timo, Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa & Miestamo, Matti (eds.), SKY Yearbook, 49−80. Helsinki: The Linguistic Association of Finland.Google Scholar
Itkonen, Esa. 2008a. Concerning the role of consciousness in linguistics. Journal of Consciousness Studies 15(6), 15–33.Google Scholar
Itkonen, Esa. 2008b. The central role of normativity in language and linguistics. In Zlatev et al. (eds.), 279−305.Google Scholar
Johnson, Mark. 1987. The Body in the Mind. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2002 [1991]. Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar, 2nd edn., with a new preface. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, David, 1969. Convention. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Meltzoff, Andrew N. & Moore, M. Keith. 1977. Imitation of facial and manual gestures by human neonates. Science, New Series 198, 75–78.Google Scholar
Meltzoff, Andrew N. & Moore, M. Keith. 1994. Imitation, memory, and the representation of persons. Infant Behavior and Development 17, 83–99.Google Scholar
Meltzoff, Andrew N. & Keith Moore, M.. 1997. Explaining facial imitation: A theoretical model. Early Development and Parenting 6, 179–192.Google Scholar
Möttönen, Tapani. 2016. Construal in Expression: An Intersubjective Approach to Cognitive Grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel. 1989. Reflections on language, development, and the interactional character of talk-in-interaction. In Bornstein, Marc & Bruner, Jerome (eds.), Interaction in Human Development, 139–153. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel. 1996. Turn organization: One intersection of interaction and grammar. In Ochs, Elinor, Thompson, Sandra & Schegloff, Emanuel (eds.), Interaction and Grammar, 52–133. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sinha, Chris. 1999. Grounding, mapping and acts of meaning. In Jansen, Theo & Redeker, Gisela (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Foundations, Scope, and Methodology, 223–255. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Stern, Daniel N. 1971. A microanalysis of mother–infant interaction. Journal of American Academy of Child Psychiatry 19, 501–517.Google Scholar
Stern, Daniel N. 1977. The First Relationship. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Stern, Daniel N. 1985. The Interpersonal World of the Infant: A View from Psychoanalysis and Developmental Psychology. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics, vol. I: Concept Structuring Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a Language: A Usage-based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Trevarthen, Colwyn. 1979. Communication and cooperation in early infancy: A description of early intersubjectivity. In Bullowa, Margaret (ed.), Before Speech: The Beginning of Human Communication, 99–136. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Trevarthen, Colwyn. 1980. The foundations of intersubjectivity. In Olson, David R., Bruner, Jerome & Miller, George A. (eds.), The Social Foundations of Language and Thought, 216–242. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Trevarthen, Colwyn & Aitken., Kenneth J. 2001. Infant intersubjectivity: Research, theory, and clinical applications. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 42(1), 3–48.Google Scholar
Verhagen, Arie. 2005. Constructions of Intersubjectivity: Discourse, Syntax, and Cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Verhagen, Arie. 2007. Construal and perspectivisation. In Geeraerts, Dirk & Cuyckens, Hubert (eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 48–81. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Verhagen, Arie. 2008. Intersubjectivity and the architecture of language system. In Zlatev et al. (eds.), 307–331.Google Scholar
Woelert, Peter. 2011. Human cognition, space, and the sedimentation of meaning. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 10(1), 113–137.Google Scholar
Zahavi, Dan. 1997. Horizontal intentionality and transcendental intersubjectivity. Tijdschrift voor Filosofie 59(2), 304–321.Google Scholar
Zahavi, Dan. 2001a. Husserl and Transcendental Intersubjectivity: A Response to the Linguistic-Pragmatic Critique. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press.Google Scholar
Zahavi, Dan. 2001b. Beyond empathy: Phenomenological approaches to intersubjectivity. In Thompson, Evan (ed.), Between Ourselves: Second-Person Issues in the Study of Consciousness, 151–167. Thorverton: Imprint Academic.Google Scholar
Zahavi, Dan. 2003. Husserl's Phenomenology. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Zahavi, Dan (ed.). 2012. Oxford Handbook of Contemporary Phenomenology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zlatev, Jordan. 2007a. Embodiment, language and mimesis. In Ziemke, Tom, Zlatev, Jordan & Frank, Roslyn M. (eds.), Body, Language and Mind, vol 1: Embodiment, 297–337. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Zlatev, Jordan. 2007b. Intersubjectivity, mimetic schemas and the emergence of language. Intellectica 46–47(2–3), 123–152.Google Scholar
Zlatev, Jordan. 2008a. The dependence of language on consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies 15(6), 34–62.Google Scholar
Zlatev, Jordan. 2008b. The co-evolution of intersubjectivity and bodily mimesis. In Zlatev et al. (eds.), 215–244.Google Scholar
Zlatev, Jordan. 2010. Phenomenology and cognitive linguistics. In Schmicking, Daniel & Gallagher, Shaun (eds.), Handbook of Phenomenology and Cognitive Science, 415–446. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Zlatev, Jordan & Blomberg, Johan. 2016. Embodied intersubjectivity, sedimentation and non-actual motion expressions, Nordic Journal of Linguistics 39(2), 185–208.Google Scholar
Zlatev, Jordan, Racine, Timothy P., Sinha, Chris & Itkonen, Esa (eds.). 2008. The Shared Mind: Perspectives on Intersubjectivity. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar