1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Interactional Linguistics
  4. Volume 3, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 3, Issue 1-2
  • ISSN 2666-4224
  • E-ISSN: 2666-4232
EPUB
PDF

Abstract

Abstract

In social interaction, different kinds of word-meaning can become problematic for participants. This study analyzes two meta-semantic practices, definitions and specifications, which are used in response to clarification requests in German implemented by the format (‘What does X mean?’). In the data studied, definitions are used to convey generalizable lexical meanings of mostly technical terms. These terms are either unknown to requesters, or, in pedagogical contexts, requesters ask in order to check the addressee’s knowledge. Specifications, in contrast, clarify aspects of local speaker meanings of ordinary expressions (e.g., reference, participants in an event, standards applied to scalar expressions). Both definitions and specifications are recipient-designed with respect to the (presumed) knowledge of the addressee and tailored to the topical and practical relevancies of the current interaction. Both practices attest to the flexibility and situatedness of speakers’ semantic understandings and to the systematicity of using meta-semantic practices differentially for different kinds of semantic problems. Data are come from mundane and institutional interaction in German from the public corpus FOLK.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/il.23002.dep
2024-01-09
2024-10-13

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/il.23002.dep
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/il.23002.dep.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/il.23002.dep&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Antaki, C.
    (2012) Affiliative and disaffiliative candidate understandings. Discourse Studies, 14 (5), 531–547. 10.1177/1461445612454074
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612454074 [Google Scholar]
  2. Aristotle
    Aristotle (1938 [4th century b.c.]). Categories: on interpretation: prior analytics. (H. P. Cooke, Ed. & H. Tredennick, Transl.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Auer, P.
    (1996) On the prosody and syntax of turn-continuations. InE. Couper-Kuhlen & M. Selting (Eds.), Prosody in conversation (pp. 57–100). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511597862.004
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597862.004 [Google Scholar]
  4. Augustine
    Augustine (1992 [400]). Confessions, a text and commentary byJames J. O’Donnell. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bar-Hillel, Y.
    (1954) Indexical expressions. Mind, 631, 359–379. 10.1093/mind/LXIII.251.359
     https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/LXIII.251.359 [Google Scholar]
  6. Barwise, J., & Perry, J.
    (1983) Situations and attitudes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Belhiah, H.
    (2013) Using the hand to choreograph instruction: on the functional role of gesture in definition talk. The Modern Language Journal, 97(2), 417–434. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2013.12012.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12012.x [Google Scholar]
  8. Bilmes, J.
    (2019) Regrading as a conversational practice. Journal of Pragmatics, 1501, 80–91. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.08.020
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.08.020 [Google Scholar]
  9. (2020) The discussion of abortion in US political debates: a study in occasioned semantics. Discourse Studies, 22(3), 291–318. 10.1177/1461445620906026
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445620906026 [Google Scholar]
  10. Clark, H. H., & Schaefer, E. F.
    (1992) Contributing to discourse. InH. H. Clark (Ed.), Arenas of language use (pp. 144–197). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M.
    (2018) Interactional linguistics: studying language in social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. De Stefani, E.
    (2023) Displaying a negative stance by questioning meaning: The Italian formatChe cosa vuol dire X? (‘what does X mean?’). Interactional Linguistics3 (1/2), 40–66.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. De Stefani, E., & Sambre, P.
    (2016) L’exhibition et la négociation du savoir dans les pratiques définitoires: l’interaction autour du syndrome de fatigue chronique dans un groupe d’entraide. Langages, 2041, 27–42. 10.3917/lang.204.0027
     https://doi.org/10.3917/lang.204.0027 [Google Scholar]
  14. Deppermann, A.
    (2000) Semantic shifts in argumentative processes: a step beyond the ‘fallacy of equivocation’. Argumentation, 14 (1), 17–30. 10.1023/A:1007838727096
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007838727096 [Google Scholar]
  15. (2005) Conversational interpretation of lexical items and conversational contrasting. In: A. Hakulinen & M. Selting (Eds.), Syntax and lexis in conversation (pp. 289–317). Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.17.15dep
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.17.15dep [Google Scholar]
  16. (2014) “Don’t get me wrong”: Recipient design by reactive and anticipatory uses of negation to constrain an action’s interpretation. InS. Günthner, W. Imo, & J. Bücker (Eds.), Grammar and dialogism (pp. 15–51). Berlin: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110358612.15
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110358612.15 [Google Scholar]
  17. (2016) La définition comme action multimodale pour des enjeux pratiques: Définir pour instruire à l’auto-école. Langages, 204(4), 83–101. 10.3917/lang.204.0083
     https://doi.org/10.3917/lang.204.0083 [Google Scholar]
  18. (2024) “What do you understand by X”: semantics in Interactional Linguistics. InM. Selting & D. Barth-Weingarten (Eds.), New perspectives in interactional linguistic research. (pp. 103–130). Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.36.04dep
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.36.04dep [Google Scholar]
  19. Deppermann, A., & De Stefani, E.
    (2019) Defining in talk-in-interaction: recipient-design through negative definitional components. Journal of Pragmatics, 1401, 140–155. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.12.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.12.004 [Google Scholar]
  20. Deppermann, A., & Schmidt, A.
    (2021) How Shared Meanings and Uses Emerge Over an Interactional History: Wabi Sabi in a Series of Theater Rehearsals. Research on Language and Social Interaction54(2), 203–224. 10.1080/08351813.2021.1899714
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2021.1899714 [Google Scholar]
  21. Dingemanse, M., Blythe, J., & Dirksmeyer, T.
    (2014) Formats for other-initiation of repair across languages: an exercise in pragmatic typology. Studies in Language, 381, 5–43. 10.1075/sl.38.1.01din
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.38.1.01din [Google Scholar]
  22. Doury, M., & Micheli, R.
    (2016) Enjeux argumentatifs de la définition : l’exemple des débats sur l’ouverture du mariage aux couples de même sexe. Langages, 2041, 121–138. 10.3917/lang.204.0121
     https://doi.org/10.3917/lang.204.0121 [Google Scholar]
  23. Egbert, M., Golato, A., & Robinson, J.
    (2009) Repairing reference. InJ. Sidnell (Ed.), Conversation Analysis: comparative perspectives (pp. 104–132). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511635670.005
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511635670.005 [Google Scholar]
  24. Eichinger, L.
    (2000) Deutsche Wortbildung. Tübingen: Narr.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Fasel Lauzon, V.
    (2014) Comprendre et apprendre dans l’interaction: les séquences d’explication en classe de français langue seconde. Bern: Lang. 10.3726/978‑3‑0351‑0641‑1
     https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-0351-0641-1 [Google Scholar]
  26. Fillmore, C. J.
    (1985) Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica6(2), 222–254.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Garfinkel, H.
    (1967) Studies in Ethnomethodology. New York: Prentice-Hall.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Golato, A., & Betz, E.
    (2008) German ‘ach’ and ‘achso’ in repair uptake: Resources to sustain or remove epistemic asymmetry. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 271, 7–37. 10.1515/ZFSW.2008.002
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ZFSW.2008.002 [Google Scholar]
  29. Goldberg, A.
    (1995) Constructions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Grice, H. P.
    (1957) Meaning. Philosophical Review66(3), 377–388. 10.2307/2182440
     https://doi.org/10.2307/2182440 [Google Scholar]
  31. (1989) Studies in the ways of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Gubina, A., & Betz, E.
    (2021) What do newsmark-type responses invite? The response space after German echt. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 54(4), 374–396. 10.1080/08351813.2021.1974745
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2021.1974745 [Google Scholar]
  33. Günthner, S.
    (2014) The dynamics of dass-constructions in everyday German interactions – a dialogical perspective. InS. Günthner, W. Imo, & J. Bücker Jörg (Eds.), Grammar and dialogism. Berlin: de Gruyter, 179–206. 10.1515/9783110358612.179
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110358612.179 [Google Scholar]
  34. (2015) Grammatische Konstruktionen im Kontext sequenzieller Praktiken – ‘was heißt x’-Konstruktionen im gesprochenen Deutsch. InJ. Bücker, S. Günthner, & W. Imo (Eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik V: Konstruktionen im Spannungsfeld von sequenziellen Mustern, kommunikativen Gattungen und Textsorten (pp. 187–218). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Helmer, H.
    (2020) How do speakers define the meaning of expressions? The case of German x heißt y (“x means y”). Discourse Processes, 57(3), 278–299. 10.1080/0163853X.2019.1646567
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2019.1646567 [Google Scholar]
  36. (2023) Ad-hoc-compounds in spoken German: (When) do we need compositionality?Interactional Linguistics3 (1/2), 67–92.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Horn, L. R.
    (2001) A natural history of negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Kaukomaa, T., Peräkylä, A., & Ruusuvuori, J.
    (2014) Foreshadowing a problem: turn-opening frowns in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 711, 132–147. 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.08.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.08.002 [Google Scholar]
  39. Keevallik, L.
    (2010) Bodily quoting in dance correction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(4), 410–426. 10.1080/08351813.2010.518065
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2010.518065 [Google Scholar]
  40. (2013) The interdependence of bodily demonstrations and clausal syntax. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 46(1), 1–21. 10.1080/08351813.2013.753710
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2013.753710 [Google Scholar]
  41. (2014) Turn organization and bodily-vocal demonstrations. Journal of Pragmatics, 651, 103–120. 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.01.008
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.01.008 [Google Scholar]
  42. (2015) Coordinating the temporalities of talk and dance. InA. Deppermann & S. Günthner (Eds.), Temporality in interaction (pp. 309–336). Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.27.10kee
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.27.10kee [Google Scholar]
  43. Kendon, A.
    (2004) Gesture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Klein, W.
    (1978) Wo ist hier? Präliminarien zu einer Untersuchung der lokalen Deixis. Linguistische Berichte, 581, 18–40.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Laakso, M., & Sorjonen, M. L.
    (2010) Cut-off or particle: devices for initiating self-repair in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(4), 1151–1172. 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.09.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.09.004 [Google Scholar]
  46. Linell, P., & Lindström, J.
    (2016) Partial intersubjectivity and sufficient understandings for current practical purposes: on a specialized practice in Swedish conversation. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 39(2), 113–133. 10.1017/S0332586516000081
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586516000081 [Google Scholar]
  47. Löbner, S.
    (2003) Understanding semantics. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Lyons, J.
    (1977) Semantics (Vol.11). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Martin, R.
    (1990) La définition « naturelle ». InJ. Chaurand & F. Mazière (Eds.), La définition (pp. 86–95). Paris: Larousse.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Mondada, L.
    (2018) Multiple temporalities of language and body in interaction: challenges for transcribing multimodality. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(1), 85–106. 10.1080/08351813.2018.1413878
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2018.1413878 [Google Scholar]
  51. Moore, G. E.
    (1903) Principia ethica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Ninio, A., & Bruner, J. S.
    (1978) The achievement and antecedents of labelling. Journal of Child Language, 5(1), 1–15. 10.1017/S0305000900001896
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900001896 [Google Scholar]
  53. Norén, K., & Linell, P.
    (2007) Meaning potentials and the interaction between lexis and grammar. Pragmatics, 17(3), 387–416.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Olsher, D.
    (2004) Talk and gesture: The embodied completion of sequential actions in spoken interaction. InR. Gardner & J. Wagner (Eds.), Second language conversations (pp. 221–245). London: Continuum.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Pfeiffer, M.
    (2015) Selbstreparaturen im Deutschen. Berlin: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110445961
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110445961 [Google Scholar]
  56. Pomerantz, A.
    (1988) Offering a candidate answer: an information seeking strategy. Communication Monographs, 55(4), 360–373. 10.1080/03637758809376177
     https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758809376177 [Google Scholar]
  57. Pustejovsky, J.
    (1995) The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Rae, J.
    (2008) Lexical substitution as a therapeutic resource. InA. Peräkylä, C. Antaki, S. Vehviläinen, & I. Leudar (Eds.), Conversation Analysis and psychotherapy (pp. 62–79). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511490002.005
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511490002.005 [Google Scholar]
  59. Raymond, G., & Sidnell, J.
    (2019) Interaction at the boundaries of a world known in common: initiating repair with “What Do You Mean?”. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 52(2), 177–192. 10.1080/08351813.2019.1608100
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2019.1608100 [Google Scholar]
  60. Reineke, S., Deppermann, A., & Schmidt, T.
    (2023) Das Forschungs- und Lehrkorpus für Gesprochenes Deutsch (FOLK): Zum Nutzen eines großen annotierten Korpus gesprochener Sprache für interaktionslinguistische Fragestellungen. InA. Deppermann, C. Fandrych, M. Kupietz, & T. Schmidt (Eds.), Korpora in der germanistischen Sprachwissenschaft: Jahrbuch des Leibniz-Institut für Deutsche Sprache 2022 (pp. 71–102). Berlin: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783111085708‑005
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111085708-005 [Google Scholar]
  61. Robinson, J., Clift, R., Kendrick, K. H., & Raymond, C. W.
    (Eds.) (2024) The Cambridge handbook of methods in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Robinson, R.
    (1950) The definition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Sambre, P.
    (2005) Emergence et conceptualisation de la définition en langue naturelle. Leuven: Katholieke Universiteit. https://www.arts.kuleuven.be/midi/publications/phd-paul
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Rosch, E.
    (1975) Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104(3), 192–233. 10.1037/0096‑3445.104.3.192
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.104.3.192 [Google Scholar]
  65. (1978) Principles of categorization. InE. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 27–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Sacks, H.
    (1972) On the analyzability of stories by children. InJ. J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: the Ethnography of Communication (pp. 325–345). New York: Rinehart & Winston.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. (1992) Lectures on conversation. Volume11. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Sacks, H., & Schegloff, E. A.
    (1979) Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. InG. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: studies in Ethnomethodology (pp. 15–21). New York: Irvington.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Schegloff, E. A.
    (1997) Practices and actions: boundary cases of other-initiated repair. Discourse Processes, 23(3), 499–545. 10.1080/01638539709545001
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539709545001 [Google Scholar]
  70. (2000) On granularity. Annual Review of Sociology, 261, 715–720. 10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.715
     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.715 [Google Scholar]
  71. (2005) On complainability. Social Problems, 52(4), 449–476. 10.1525/sp.2005.52.4.449
     https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2005.52.4.449 [Google Scholar]
  72. (2016) Increments. InJ. D. Robinson (Ed.), Accountability in social interaction (pp. 239–263). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190210557.003.0008
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190210557.003.0008 [Google Scholar]
  73. Schenkein, J.
    (1978) Identity negotiations in conversation. InJ. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 57–78). New York: Academic Press. 10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑623550‑0.50009‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-623550-0.50009-4 [Google Scholar]
  74. Schmale, G.
    (2016) La définition-en-interaction: la définition du sens comme accomplissement interactif. Langages, 2041, 67–82. 10.3917/lang.204.0067
     https://doi.org/10.3917/lang.204.0067 [Google Scholar]
  75. Selting, M.
    (1987) Verständigungsprobleme: Eine empirische Analyse am Beispiel der Bürger-Verwaltungs-Kommunikation. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783111357669
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111357669 [Google Scholar]
  76. Selting, M., Auer, P., Barth-Weingarten, D., Bergmann, J., Bergmann, P., Birkner, K.
    (2011) A system for transcribing talk-in-interaction: GAT 2. Translated and adapted for English by E. Couper-Kuhlen and D. Barth-Weingarten. Gesprächsforschung / Discourse and Conversation Analysis121, 1–51.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Sinclair, J.
    (1991) Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  78. St. Thomas Aquinas
    St. Thomas Aquinas (1947[1265]) The summa theologica. New York: Benziger.
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Stivers, T.
    (2022) The book of answers. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780197563892.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197563892.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  80. Stivers, T., & Hayashi, M.
    (2010) Transformative answers: one way to resist a question’s constraints. Language in Society, 39(1), 1–25. 10.1017/S0047404509990637
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404509990637 [Google Scholar]
  81. Svennevig, J.
    (2018) Decomposing turns to enhance understanding by L2 speakers. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(4), 398–416. 10.1080/08351813.2018.1524575
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2018.1524575 [Google Scholar]
  82. Thurmair, M.
    (1989) Modalpartikeln und ihre Kombinationen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783111354569
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111354569 [Google Scholar]
  83. Traverso, V., & Greco, L.
    (2016) L’activité de définition dans l’interaction: Objets, ressources, formats. Langages, 2041, 5–26. 10.3917/lang.204.0005
     https://doi.org/10.3917/lang.204.0005 [Google Scholar]
  84. Traverso, V., & Ravazzolo, E.
    (2016) Définitions ostensives co-construites: le cas de la visite guidée. Langages, 2041, 43–66. 10.3917/lang.204.0043
     https://doi.org/10.3917/lang.204.0043 [Google Scholar]
  85. Wittgenstein, L.
    (1953 [1950]) Philosophical investigations (translated byG. E. M. Anscombe). Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/il.23002.dep
Loading
Meta-semantic practices in social interaction
Interactional Linguistics 3, 13 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1075/il.23002.dep
/content/journals/10.1075/il.23002.dep
/content/journals/10.1075/il.23002.dep
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): definition; Interactional Linguistics; repair-initiation; semantics; specification

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error