Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T13:21:13.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

7 - Reflexivity and Meta-awareness

from Part I - Fundamentals of Sociopragmatics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2021

By
Jef Verschueren
Edited by
Michael Haugh ,
Dániel Z. Kádár  and
Marina Terkourafi
Michael Haugh
Affiliation:
University of Queensland
Dániel Z. Kádár
Affiliation:
Hungarian Research Institute for Linguistics, and Dalian University of Foreign Languages
Marina Terkourafi
Affiliation:
Leiden University
Get access

Summary

This chapter deals with the status of meaning-generating processes, taking place in language use, in relation to human cognition. A basic assumption is that reflexive or metalinguistic awareness is one of the original evolutionary prerequisites for the development of human language, and that it plays a central role in all instances of producing and interpreting utterances. The chapter reviews the ways in which metalinguistic activity types and indicators of reflexive awareness have been accounted for in the past. It explores the relevance of the topic for a pragmatic understanding of social interaction, with special attention for cross-linguistic variability (and hence with implications for intercultural communication). Finally, it reflects on methodological problems involved in the study of the phenomena at hand, and perspectives for future research are briefly sketched.

Keywords

metapragmaticsmetalanguagemetalinguistic awarenessreflexivity
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics , pp. 117 - 139
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

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

Aijmer, K. (2018). Positioning of self in interaction: Adolescents’ use of attention-getters. In K. Beeching, C. Ghezzi, and P. Molinelli, , eds., Positioning the Self and Others: Linguistic Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 177–95.Google Scholar
Auer, P. (1992). Introduction: John Gumperz’ approach to contextualization. In Auer, P. and Di Luzio, A., eds., The Contextualization of Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–37.Google Scholar
Auer, P. and Di Luzio, A. (eds.). (1992). The Contextualization of Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Babcock, B. A. (ed.). (1980). Signs about Signs: The Semiotics of Self-Reference. Special Issue. Semiotica, 30(1/2).Google Scholar
Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Edited by Holquist, M. and Emerson, C.. Translated by Holquist, M.. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an Ecology of Mind. New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar
Bauman, R. and Sherzer, J. (eds.). (1989). Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Beeching, K. (2018). Metacommenting in English and French: A variational pragmatics approach. In K. Beeching, C. Ghezzi, and P. Molinelli, , eds., Positioning the Self and Others: Linguistic Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 127–53.Google Scholar
Beeching, K., Ghezzi, C. and Molinelli, P. (eds.). (2018). Positioning the Self and Others: Linguistic Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benveniste, E. (1956). La nature des pronoms. In Halle, M. et al., eds., For Roman Jakobson. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 34–7.Google Scholar
Benveniste, E. (1966). Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Birdsong, D. (1989). Metalinguistic Performance and Interlinguistic Competence. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briggs, C. (1986). Learning How to Ask: A Sociolinguistic Appraisal of the Role of the Interview in Social Science Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bublitz, W. and Hübler, A. (eds.). (2007). Metapragmatics in Use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Busse, U. and Hübler, A. (eds.). (2012). Investigations into the Meta-Communicative Lexicon of English: A Contribution to Historical Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, R. (1919). The Logical Syntax of Language. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Caton, S. C. (1993). The importance of reflexive language in George H. Mead’s theory of self and communication. In Lucy, J. A., ed., Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 315–37.Google Scholar
Coulmas, F. (ed.). (1986a). Direct and Indirect Speech. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coulmas, F. (1986b). Reported speech: Some general issues. In Coulmas, F., ed., Direct and Indirect Speech. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1–28.Google Scholar
Daniëls, H. (2018). Diglossia: A language ideological approach. Pragmatics, 28(2), 185–216.Google Scholar
Deschrijver, C. (2018). Economic and financial terms in online interaction: Metalanguage in the Guardian comment boards during the 2010–2011 Euro Crisis bailouts. PhD dissertation, King’s College London.Google Scholar
Ducrot, O. (1984). Le dire et le dit. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Duranti, A. (2015). The Anthropology of Intentions: Language in a World of Others. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Eelen, G. (2001). A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester, UK: St Jerome.Google Scholar
Errington, J. J. (1985). On the nature of the sociolinguistic sign. In Mertz, E. and Parmentier, R., eds., Semiotic Mediation. New York: Academic Press, pp. 287–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Errington, J. J. (1992). On the ideology of Indonesian language development: The state of a language of state. Pragmatics, 2(3), 417–26.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1997). Lectures on Deixis. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1984). Remarks on contrastive pragmatics. In Fisiak, J., ed., Contrastive Linguistics: Prospects and Problems. Berlin: Mouton, pp. 119–41.Google Scholar
Fukushima, S. (2013). Evaluation of (im)politeness: A comparative study among Japanese students, Japanese parents, and American students on evaluation of attentiveness. Pragmatics, 23(2), 275–99.Google Scholar
Geyer, N. (2018). Negotiating entitlement in Japanese: The case of requesting forms. In Hudson, M. E., Matsumoto, Y. and Mori, J., eds., Pragmatics of Japanese: Perspectives on Grammar, Interaction and Culture. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 149–72.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1979). Footing. Semiotica, 25, 1–29.Google Scholar
Gombert, J. É. (1990). Le développement métalinguistique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. English translation, 1992, Metalinguistic Development. Hertfordshire, UK: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (2018). Co-operative Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J. (1992). Contextualization revisited. In Auer, P. and Di Luzio, A., eds., The Contextualization of Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 39–53.Google Scholar
Hanks, W. F. (1993). Metalanguage and pragmatics of deixis. In Lucy, J.A., ed., Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 127–57.Google Scholar
Harras, G., Winkler, A., Erb, S. and Proost, K. (2004). Handbuch deutscher Kommunikationsverben. 2 vols. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2018). Corpus-based metapragmatics. In Jucker, A., Schneider, K. P. and Bublitz, W., eds., Methods in Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 615–39.Google Scholar
Hill, J. H. (2008). The Language of Everyday White Racism. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hoenigswald, H. (1966). A proposal for the study of folk-linguistics. In Bright, W., ed., Sociolinguistics. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 16–26.Google Scholar
Holt, E. (2009). Reported speech. In Östman, J.-O. and Verschueren, J., eds., Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–19.Google Scholar
Hübler, A. (2007). On the metapragmatics of gestures. In Bublitz, W. and Hübler, A., eds., Metapragmatics in Use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 107–28.Google Scholar
Hudson, M. E., Matsumoto, Y. and Mori, J. (eds.). (2018). Pragmatics of Japanese: Perspectives on Grammar, Interaction and Culture. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Irvine, J. T. (1995). Honorifics. In Östman, J.-O. and Verschueren, J., eds., Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–22.Google Scholar
Jacobs, G. (1999). Preformulating the News: An Analysis of the Metapragmatics of Press Releases. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, R. ([1957] 1971). Shifters, verbal categories, and the Russian verb. In Selected Writings II. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 130–47.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. ([1956] 1985). Metalanguage as a linguistic problem. In Selected Writings VII. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 113–21.Google Scholar
Jaworski, A., Coupland, N. and Galasiński, D. (eds.). (2004). Metalanguage: Social and Ideological Perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1922). Language: Its Nature, Development and Origin. New York: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Katriel, T. (1986). Talking Straight: ‘Dugri’ Speech in Israeli Sabra Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kertész, A. (1997). The reflexivity of cognitive science and the philosophy of linguistics. In A. Kertész, , ed., Metalinguistik im Wandel: Die ‘kognitive Wende’in Wissenschaftstheorie und Linguistik. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang, pp. 197–233.Google Scholar
Kroskrity, P. V. (2010). Language ideologies. In Östman, J-O. and Verschueren, J., eds., Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–24.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1992). Activity types and language. In Drew, P. and Heritage, J., eds., Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 66–100.Google Scholar
Lucy, J. (1993a). Reflexive language and the human disciplines. In Lucy, J. A., ed., Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 9–32.Google Scholar
Lucy, J. (1993b). Metapragmatic presentationals: Reporting speech with quotatives in Yucatec Maya. In Lucy, J. A., ed., Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 91–125.Google Scholar
Lucy, J. A. (ed.). (1993). Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Vol. I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maschler, Y. (2009). Metalanguage in Interaction: Hebrew Discourse Markers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
McKenzie, R. M. and Osthus, D. (2011). That which we call a rose by any other name would sound as sweet: Folk perceptions, status and language variation. AILA Review, 24, 100–115.Google Scholar
Mertz, E. (1993). Learning what to ask: Metapragmatic factors and methodological reification. In Lucy, J. A., ed., Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 159–74.Google Scholar
Mertz, E. and Yovel, J. (2000). Metalinguistic awareness. In Östman, J.-O. and Verschueren, J., eds., Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–26.Google Scholar
Muntigl, P. (2007). A metapragmatic examination of therapist reformulations. In Bublitz, W. and Hübler, A., eds., Metapragmatics in Use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 235–62.Google Scholar
Nakassis, C. V. (2013). Citation and citationality. Signs and Society, 1(1), 51–78.Google Scholar
Niedzelski, N. and Preston, D. R. (2007). Folk pragmatics. In Östman, J.-O. and Verschueren, J., eds., Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–12.Google Scholar
Nyan, T. (1998). Metalinguistic Operators with Reference to French. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Okamoto, S. (2018). Metapragmatic discourse in self-help books on Japanese women’s speech: An indexical approach to social meanings In Hudson, M. E., Matsumoto, Y. and Mori, J., eds., Pragmatics of Japanese: Perspectives on Grammar, Interaction and Culture. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 246–66.Google Scholar
Penz, H. (2007). Building common ground through metapragmatic comments in international project work. In Bublitz, W. and Hübler, A., eds., Metapragmatics in Use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 263–92.Google Scholar
Petykó, M. (2018). The motives attributed to trolls in metapragmatic comments on three Hungarian left-wing political blogs. Pragmatics, 28(3), 391–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Recanati, F. (2000). Oratio Obliqua, Oratio Recta: An Essay on Metarepresentation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Reddy, M. J. (1979). The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In Ortony, A., ed., Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 284–324.Google Scholar
Roulet, E. (1996). Polyphony. In Östman, J.-O. and Verschueren, J., eds., Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–18.Google Scholar
Ruesch, J. and Bateson, G. (1951). Communication: The Social Matrix of Psychiatry. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Salverda, R. (2017). “Montrer au linguiste ce qu’il fait”: Revisiting Saussure from an experimental perspective on language play. Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure: Revue de Linguistique Générale, 70, 115–27.Google Scholar
Schieffelin, B. B., Kroskrity, P. V. and Woolard, K. A. (eds.). (1992). Language Ideologies. Special Issue. Pragmatics, 3(2).Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. (1976). Shifters, linguistic categories, and cultural description. In Basso, K. and Selby, H., eds., Meaning in Anthropology. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, pp. 11–55.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. (1979). Language structure and linguistic ideology. In Clyne, P. R., Hanks, W. F. and Hofbauer, C. L., eds., The Elements: A Parasession on Linguistic Units and Levels. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 193–247.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. (1981). The limits of awareness. Sociolinguistic Working Paper 84.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. (1993). Metapragmatic discourse and metapragmatic function. In Lucy, J. A., ed., Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 33–58.Google Scholar
Sinkeviciute, V. (2019). Juggling identities in interviews: The metapragmatics of ‘doing humour’. Journal of Pragmatics. 152: 216–227.Google Scholar
Sivenkova, M. (2013). On the metapragmatics of British, German and Russian political questions and answers. In Fetzer, A., ed., The Pragmatics of Political Discourse: Explorations across Cultures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 21–46.Google Scholar
Suzuki, S. (2018). Linguistic nationalism and fictional deception: Metapragmatic stereotype on non-Japanese in Japan. In Hudson, M. E., Matsumoto, Y. and Mori, J., eds., Pragmatics of Japanese: Perspectives on Grammar, Interaction and Culture. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 267–87.Google Scholar
Tarski, A. (1956). The semantic conception of truth. Philosophical and Phenomenological Research, 4, 341–75.Google Scholar
Tunmer, W. E., Pratt, C. and Herriman, M. L. (eds.). (1984). Metalinguistic Awareness in Children: Theory, Research, and Implications. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Urban, G. (1984). Speech about speech in speech about action. The Journal of American Folklore, 97(385), 310–28.Google Scholar
Verschueren, J. (1985a). What People Say They Do with Words: Prolegomena to an Empirical-Conceptual Approach to Linguistic Action. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Verschueren, J. (1985b). International News Reporting: Metapragmatic Metaphors and the U2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Verschueren, J. (1989). Language on language: Towards metapragmatic universals. IPrA Papers in Pragmatics, 3(2), 1–144.Google Scholar
Verschueren, J. (1995). The conceptual basis of performativity. In Shibatani, M. and Thompson, S., eds., Essays in Semantics and Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 297–319.Google Scholar
Verschueren, J. (1999). Understanding Pragmatics. London: Edward Arnold/Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Verschueren, J. (2000). Notes on the role of metapragmatic awareness in language use. Pragmatics, 10(4), 439–56.Google Scholar
Verschueren, J. and Brisard, F. (2002). Adaptability. In Östman, J.-O. and Verschueren, J., eds., Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–24.Google Scholar
Watzlawick, P., Bavelas, J. B. and Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of Human Communication: A Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies, and Paradoxes. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Wilton, A. and Stegu, M. (eds.). (2011). Applied Folk Linguistics. Special Issue. AILA Review, 24.Google Scholar
Winch, P. (1958). The Idea of a Social Science and Its Relation to Philosophy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Woolard, K. and Schieffelin, B. (1994). Language ideology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 23, 55–82.Google Scholar
Woolgar, S. (ed.). (1988). Knowledge and Reflexivity: New Frontiers in the Sociology of Knowledge. London: Sage.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×