Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T22:31:59.523Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cognitive Linguistics and interactional discourse: time to enter into dialogue

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 November 2015

ELISABETH ZIMA Open the ORCID record for ELISABETH ZIMA [Opens in a new window]  and
GEERT BRÔNE
ELISABETH ZIMA
Affiliation:
University of Freiburg, Germany
GEERT BRÔNE
Affiliation:
University of Leuven, Belgium
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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.

Type
Research Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 7 , Issue 4: Special issue on Cognitive Linguistics and Interactional Discourse , December 2015 , pp. 485 - 498
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

Auer, P. (2009). On-line syntax: thoughts on the temporality of spoken language. Language Sciences, 31, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auer, P., & Pfänder, S. (Eds.) (2011a). Constructions: emerging and emergent. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auer, P., & Pfänder, S. (2011b). Constructions: Emergent or emerging? In Auer, P. & Pfänder, S. (Eds.), Constructions: emerging and emergent (pp. 1–21). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Barlow, M., & Kemmer, S. (Eds.) (2000). Usage-based models of language. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. (2005). Situated conceptualization. In Cohen, H. & Lefebvre, C. (Eds.), Handbook of categorization in cognitive science (pp. 619–650). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boogaart, R., Colleman, T., & Rutten, G. (Eds.), (2014) Extending the scope of Construction Grammar. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Brône, G. (2008). Hyper- and misunderstanding in interactional humor. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(12), 2027–2061.Google Scholar
Brône, G. (2010). Bedeutungskonstitution in verbalem Humor: Ein kognitiv-linguistischer und diskurssemantischer Ansatz. Frankfurt a. Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Brône, G., & Coulson, S. (2010). Processing deliberate ambiguity in newspaper headlines: double grounding. Discourse Processes, 47(3), 212–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brône, G., & Oben, B. (2013). Resonating humour: a corpus-based approach to creative parallelism in discourse. In Veale, T., Feyaerts, K., & Forceville, C. (Eds.), Creativity and the agile mind: a multidisciplinary approach to a multifaceted phenomenon (pp. 181–203). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brône, G., & Oben, B. (2015). InSight interaction: a multimodal and multifocal dialogue corpus. Language Resources and Evaluation, 49(1), 195–214.Google Scholar
Brône, G., & Zima, E. (2014). Towards a dialogic construction grammar: ad hoc routines and resonance activation. In Giora, R. & Du Bois, J. W. (Eds.), special issue of Cognitive Linguistics, 25(3), 457–495.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (1995). Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10, 425–455.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. L. (1994). Discourse, consciousness, and time: the flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chilton, P. (2005). Vectors, viewpoints, and viewpoint shifts. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 3, 78–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cienki, A. (2002). Questions about mental imagery, gesture, and image schemas. Journal of Mental Imagery, 26(4), 3–46.Google Scholar
Cienki, A. (2008). Why study metaphor and gesture? In Cienki, A. & Müller, C. (Eds.), Metaphor and gesture (pp. 5–25). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cienki, A. (2013). Image schemas and mimetic schemas in cognitive linguistics and gesture studies. In Pinar Sanz, M. J. (Ed.), Multimodality and Cognitive Linguistics, special issue of Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 11(2), 417–432.Google Scholar
Cienki, A., & Müller, C. (Eds.) (2008a). Metaphor and gesture. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cienki, A., & Müller, C. (2008b). Metaphor, gesture, and thought. In Gibbs, R. W. (Ed.), Handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 483–501). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Coulson, S. (2000). Semantic leaps: frame-shifting and conceptual blending in meaning construction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Coulson, S. (2005). Sarcasm and the space structuring model. In Coulson, S. & Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. (Eds.), The literal and the nonliteral in language and thought (pp. 129–144). Berlin: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Coulson, S. (2006). Constructing meaning. Metaphor and Symbol, 21(4), 245–266.Google Scholar
Dancygier, B. (2005). Blending and narrative viewpoint: Jonathan Raban’s travels through mental spaces. Language and Literature, 14(2), 99–127.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A. (2002). Von der Kognition zur verbalen Interaktion: Bedeutungskonstitution im Kontext aus Sicht der Kognitionswissenschaften und der Gesprächsforschung. In Deppermann, A., Fiehler, R., & Spranz-Fogasy, T. (Eds.), Be-deuten: Wie Bedeutung im Gespräch entsteht (pp. 11–33). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A. (2007). Grammatik und Semantik aus gesprächsanalytischer Sicht. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A. (2011a). Constructions vs. lexical items as sources of complex meanings: a comparative study of constructions with German verstehen. In Auer, P. & Pfänder, S. (Eds.), Constructions: emerging and emergent (pp. 88–126). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Depermann, A. (2011b). Konstruktionsgrammatik und Interaktionale Linguistik: Affinitäten, Komplementaritäten und Diskrepanzen. In Lasch, A. & Ziem, A. (Eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik III: Aktuelle Fragen und Lösungsansätze (pp. 205–238). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A. (2012). How does ‘cognition’ matter to the analysis of talk-in-interaction? Language Sciences, 34, 746–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. (2014). Usage-based linguistics. In Aronoff, M. (Ed.), Oxford Bibliographies in ‘Linguistics’. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Du Bois, J. W. (2007). The stance triangle. In Englebretson, R. (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (pp. 139–182). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Etelämäki, M., & Visapää, L. (2014). Why blend Conversation Analysis with Cognitive Grammar? Pragmatics, 24(3), 447–506.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
Fischer, K. (2006). Konstruktionsgrammatik und Interaktion. In Fischer, K. & Stefanowitsch, A. (Eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik, Bd. 1: Von der Anwendung zur Theorie (pp. 129–140). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Fischer, K. (2010). Beyond the sentence: constructions, frames and spoken interaction. Constructions and Frames, 2(2), 185–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, K. (2015). Kognitive Routinen oder soziale Praktiken: Gesprächsanalyse und das Verhältnis von Kognition und Interaktion. In Lasch, A. & Ziem, A. (Eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik IV: Konstruktionen und Konventionen als kognitive Routinen (pp. 255–268). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Forceville, Ch. (2010). Why and how study metaphor, metonymy, and other tropes in multimodal discourse? In Caballero, R. & Pinar, M. J. (Eds.), Ways and modes of human communicationg (pp. 57–76). Cuenca: Ediciones de la Universidad de Castilla La Mancha.Google Scholar
Forceville, Ch., & Urios-Aparisi, E. (2009). Multimodal metaphor. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fox, B., & Thompson, S. (2007). Relative clauses in English conversation: relativizers, frequency and the notion of construction. Studies in Language, 31, 293–326.Google Scholar
Fried, M., & Östman, J.-O. (2005). Construction Grammar and spoken language: the case of pragmatic particles. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(11), 1752–1778.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (2006). Introduction: a rough guide to Cognitive Linguistics. In Geeraerts, D. (Ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: basic readings (pp. 1–28). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D. & Cuyckens, H. (2007). Introducing Cognitive Linguistics. In Geeraerts, D. & Cuyckens, H. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 3–21). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: a Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at work: the nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gullberg, M., & Kita, S. (2009). Attention to speech-accompanying gestures: eye movements and information uptake. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 33(4), 251–277.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Günthner, S., Bücker, J., & Imo, W. (Eds.) (2014). Grammar and dialogism: sequential, syntactic, and prosodic patterns between emergence and sedimentation. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Günthner, S., & Imo, W. (Eds.) (2006). Konstruktionen in der Interaktion. Berlin: Mouton de GruyterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hougaard, A., & Oakley, T. (Eds.) (2008). Mental spaces in interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ibbotson, P. (2013). The scope of usage-based theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1–15.Google Scholar
Imo, W. (2007). Construction Grammar und Gesprochene-Sprache-Forschung: Konstruktionen mit zehn matrixsatzfähigen Verben im gesprochenen Deutsch. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Imo, W. (2009). Where does the mountain stop? A granular approach to the concept of constructions-as-signs. Published online: <http://www.unimuenster.de/imperia/md/content/germanistik/lehrende/imo_w/granularityandconstructions.pdf>..>Google Scholar
Janda, L. (2015). Cognitive Linguistics in the year 2015. Cognitive Semantics, 1(1), 131–154.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 1: theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1988). A usage-based model. In Rudzka-Ostyn, B. (Ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 127–161). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 2: 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.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2009). Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2013). Interactive cognition: toward a unified account of structure, processing, and discourse. International Journal of Cognitive Linguistics, 3, 95–125.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. (2006). Cognition at the heart of human interaction. Discourse Studies, 8(1), 85–93.Google Scholar
Linell, P. (1998). Approaching dialogue: talk, interaction and contexts in dialogic perspectives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Linell, P. (2009). Rethinking language, mind, and the world dialogically. Charlotte, NY: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Linell, P. (2014). A dialogic notebook: some afterthoughts after rethinking. Manuscript. Online: <http://www.ipkl.gu.se/digitalAssets/1475/1475848_163-a-dialogical-note-book.pdf>.Google Scholar
McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind: what gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
Mittelberg, I. (2006). Metaphor and metonymy in language and gesture: discourse evidence for multimodal models of grammar. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Mittelberg, I., & Waugh, L. R. (2014). Gestures and metonymy. In Müller, C., Cienki, A., Fricke, E., Ladewig, S. H., McNeill, D., & Bressem, J.. (Eds.), Body – language – communication: an international handbook on multimodality in human interaction (pp. 1747–1766). Berlin/Boston: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Müller, C. (2004). Metaphors dead and alive, sleeping and waking: a cognitive approach to metaphors in language use. Unpublished Habilitationsschrift, Free University Berlin.Google Scholar
Nerlich, B., & Clarke, D. (2001). Ambiguities we live by: towards a pragmatics of polysemy. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1–20.Google Scholar
Nerlich, B., & Clarke, D. (2003). Polysemy and flexibility: introduction and overview. In Nerlich, B., Todd, Z., Vimala, H., & Clarke, D. (Eds.), Polysemy: flexible patterns of meaning in mind and language (pp. 3–29). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Oakley, T., & Hougaard, A. (Eds.) (2008). Mental spaces in discourse and interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Östman, J.-O. (2005). Construction discourse. In Östman, J.-O. & Fried, M. (Eds.), Construction Grammars: cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp. 121–144). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pascual, E. (2014). Fictive interaction: the conversation frame in thought, language, and discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2004). Towards a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 27, 169–225.Google Scholar
Schoonjans, S. (2014). Modalpartikeln als multimodale Konstruktionen: Eine korpusbasierte Kookkurrenzanalyse von Modalpartikeln und Gestik im Deutschen. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Leuven.Google Scholar
Schoonjans, S., Sambre, P., Brône, G., & Feyaerts, K. (in press). Vers une analyse multimodale du sens: Perspectives constructionnelles sur la gestualité co-grammaticale. Langages.Google Scholar
Steen, F., & Turner, M. (2013). Multimodal construction grammar. In Borkent, M., Dancygier, B., & Hinnell, J. (Eds.), Language and the creative mind (pp. 255–274). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. (2011). Cognitive linguistics meets the corpus. In Brdar, M., Gries, S., & Žic Fuchs, M. (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: convergence and expansion (pp. 57–290). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R. (2002). Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (1998). The New psychology of language: cognitive and functional approaches to language structure. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (1999). The cultural origins of human cognition. Harvard, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: a usage-based account of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Verhagen, A. (2005). Constructions of intersubjectivity. discourse, syntax and cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Verhagen, A. (2007). Construal and perspectivisation. In Geeraerts, D. & Cuyckens, H. (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 48–81). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zima, E. (2013). Cognitive Grammar and dialogic syntax: exploring potential synergies. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 11(1), 36–72.Google Scholar
Zima, E. (in press). Multimodal constructional resemblance: the case of English circular motion constructions. In Ruiz de Mendoza, F. & Pérez Sobrino, P. (Eds.), Constructing families of constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Zlatev, J. (2014). The co-evolution of human intersubjectivity, morality and language. In Dor, D., Knight, C., & Lewis, D. (Eds.), The social origins of language (pp. 249–266). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar