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
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This editorial to the Special Issue on “Meaning in Interaction” introduces to the approach of Interactional Semantics, which has been developed over the last years within the framework of Interactional Linguistics. It discusses how “meaning” is understood and approached in this framework and lays out that Interactional Semantics is interested in how participants clarify and negotiate the meanings of the expressions that they are using in social interaction. Commonalities and differences of this approach with other approaches to meaning are flagged, and the intellectual origins and precursors of Interactional Semantics are introduced. The contributions to the Special Issue are located in the larger field of research.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/il.24004.dep
2024-03-18
2024-12-10

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/il.24004.dep
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aitchison, J.
    (2012) Words in the mind: An introduction to the mental lexicon. 4th ed.Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Barth-Weingarten, D., & Szczepek Reed, B.
    (Eds.) (2014) Prosody and phonetics in interaction. Mannheim: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Bilmes, J.
    (2009) Taxonomies are for talking: Reanalyzing a Sacks classic. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(8), 1600–1610. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.008
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.008 [Google Scholar]
  4. (2011) Occasioned semantics: A systematic approach to meaning in talk. Human Studies, 34(2), 155–181. 10.1007/s10746‑011‑9183‑z
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-011-9183-z [Google Scholar]
  5. (2015) The structure of meaning in talk: Explorations in category analysis. Volume I: Co-categorization, contrast, and hierarchy. www2.hawaii.edu/~bilmes/structure_of_meaning.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  6. (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]
  7. (2022) Delineating categories in verbal interaction. Discourse Studies, OnlineFirst. 10.1177/14614456211022084
     https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456211022084 [Google Scholar]
  8. Coulter, J.
    (1996) Human practices and the observability of the ‘macrosocial’. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 25(5), 337–345. 10.1515/zfsoz‑1996‑0501
     https://doi.org/10.1515/zfsoz-1996-0501 [Google Scholar]
  9. Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M.
    (Eds.) (1996) Prosody in conversation: Interactional studies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511597862
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597862 [Google Scholar]
  10. (Eds.) (2018) Interactional linguistics: Studying language in social interaction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Cruse, D. A.
    (1986) Lexical semantics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Debois, T., & De Stefani, E.
    (2022) Interactional onomastics: Place names as malleable resources. InA. H. Jucker & H. Hausendorf (Eds.), Pragmatics of space (pp. 125–152). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110693713‑005
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110693713-005 [Google Scholar]
  13. Deppermann, A.
    (2005) Conversational interpretation of lexical items and conversational contrasting. InA. 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]
  14. (2007) Grammatik und Semantik aus gesprächsanalytischer Sicht. Berlin: De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. (2011) The study of formulations as a key to an interactional semantics. Human Studies, 34(2), 115–128. 10.1007/s10746‑011‑9187‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-011-9187-8 [Google Scholar]
  16. (2015) Retrospection and understanding in interaction. InA. Deppermann & S. Günthner (Eds.), Temporality in interaction (pp. 57–94), Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.27.02dep
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.27.02dep [Google Scholar]
  17. (2016) La définition comme action multimodale pour des enjeux pratiques: définir pour instruire à l’auto-école. Langages, 4(204), 83–101. 10.3917/lang.204.0083
     https://doi.org/10.3917/lang.204.0083 [Google Scholar]
  18. (2019) „s hat sicherlich auch öh (0.4) kultuRELle (0.8) öh n kultuRELlen hintergrund“. Kultur in der alltäglichen Interaktion. InJ. Schröter, S. Tienken, Y. Ilg, J. Scharloth, & N. Bubenhofer (Eds.), Linguistische Kulturanalyse (pp. 29–50). Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110585896‑002
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110585896-002 [Google Scholar]
  19. (2020) Interaktionale Semantik. InJ. Hagemann, & S. Staffeldt (Eds.), Semantiktheorien II: Analysen von Wort- und Satzbedeutungen im Vergleich (pp. 235–278). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. (2023) Meta-semantic practices in social interaction: Definitions and specifications provided in response to Was heißt X (‘What does X mean’). Interactional Linguistics3 (1/2), 13–39.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. (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]
  22. 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]
  23. Deppermann, A., & Spranz-Fogasy, T.
    (Eds.) (2002) Be-deuten: Wie Bedeutung im Gespräch entsteht. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. De Stefani, E.
    (2005) Les demandes de définition en français parlé. Aspects grammaticaux et interactionnels. Travaux Neuchâtelois de Linguistique, 411, 147–163. 10.26034/tranel.2005.2709
     https://doi.org/10.26034/tranel.2005.2709 [Google Scholar]
  25. (2019) Ordering and serving coffee in an Italian café: How customers obtain ‘their’ coffee. InD. Day & J. Wagner (Eds.), Objects, bodies and work practice (pp. 113–139). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781788924535‑008
     https://doi.org/10.21832/9781788924535-008 [Google Scholar]
  26. (2020) Nel senso (che) in Italian conversation: Turn-taking, turn-maintaining and turn-yielding. InY. Maschler, S. Pekarek Doehler, J. Lindström, & L. Keevallik (Eds.), Emergent syntax for conversation: Clausal patterns and the organization of action (pp. 25–54). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.32.02ste
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.32.02ste [Google Scholar]
  27. (2023) Displaying a negative stance by questioning meaning: The Italian format Che cosa vuol dire X? (‘What does X mean?’). Interactional Linguistics3 (1/2), 40–66.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. 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, 4(204), 27–42. 10.3917/lang.204.0027
     https://doi.org/10.3917/lang.204.0027 [Google Scholar]
  29. Dingemanse, M., Blythe, J., & Dirksmeyer, T.
    (2014) Formats for other-initiation of repair across languages. Studies in Language38(1), 5–43. 10.1075/sl.38.1.01din
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.38.1.01din [Google Scholar]
  30. Enfield, N., & Stivers, T.
    (Eds.) (2007) Person reference in interaction: Linguistic, cultural and social perspectives. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486746
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486746 [Google Scholar]
  31. Fasel Lauzon, V.
    (2014) Comprendre et apprendre dans l’interaction. Les séquences d’explication en classe de français langue seconde. Bern: Peter Lang. 10.3726/978‑3‑0351‑0641‑1
     https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-0351-0641-1 [Google Scholar]
  32. Frake, C. O.
    (1962) The ethnographic study of cognitive systems. InW. C. Sturtevant (Ed.), Anthropology and human behavior (pp. 72–85). Washington, DC: Anthropological Society of Washington.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Garfinkel, H.
    (1967) Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Garfinkel, H. & Sacks, H.
    (1970) On formal structures in practical action. InJ. C. McKinney, & E. A. Tiryakian (Eds.), Theoretical sociology: Perspectives and developments (pp. 338–366). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Geeraerts, D.
    (2021) Cognitive semantics. InW. Xu & J. R. Taylor (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 19–29). New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781351034708‑3
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351034708-3 [Google Scholar]
  36. Glynn, D., & Fisher, K.
    (Eds.) (2010) Quantitative methods in cognitive semantics: Corpus-driven approaches. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110226423
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226423 [Google Scholar]
  37. Goodenough, W. H.
    (1965) Yankee kinship terminology: A problem in componential analysis. Part 2: Formal semantic analysis. American Anthropologist, 67(5), New Series, 259–287. 10.1525/aa.1965.67.5.02a00820
     https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1965.67.5.02a00820 [Google Scholar]
  38. Goodwin, C.
    (1997) The blackness of black: Color categories as situated practice. InL. B. Resnick, R. Säljö, C. Pontecorvo & B. Burge (Eds.), Discourse, tools and reasoning: Essays on situated cognition (pp. 111–140). Berlin/Heidelberg/New York: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑662‑03362‑3_6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-03362-3_6 [Google Scholar]
  39. Greco, L., & Traverso, V.
    (Eds.) (2016) Définir les mots dans l’interaction: un essai de sémantique interactionnelle. Special Issue ofLangages, 4(204).
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Günthner, S.
    (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]
  41. Hakulinen, A., & Selting, M.
    (Eds.) (2005) Syntax and lexis in conversation: Studies on the use of linguistic resources in talk-in-interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.17
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.17 [Google Scholar]
  42. Haugh, Michael
    (2008) The place of intention in the interactional achievement of implicature. InI. Kecskes, & J. Mey (Eds.), Intention, common ground and the egocentric speaker-hearer (pp. 45–85). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110211474.1.45
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110211474.1.45 [Google Scholar]
  43. Hauser, E.
    (2011) Generalization: A practice of situated categorization in talk. Human Studies, 34(2), 183–198. 10.1007/s10746‑011‑9184‑y
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-011-9184-y [Google Scholar]
  44. Helmer, H.
    (2020) Das heißt (‘that means’) for formulation and du meinst (‘you mean’) for repair? Interpretations of prior speakers’ turns in German. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 52(2), 159–176. 10.1080/08351813.2019.1608098
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2019.1608098 [Google Scholar]
  45. (2023) Ad-hoc-compounds in spoken German: (When) do we need compositionality?Interactional Linguistics3 (1/2), 67–92.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Heritage, J., & Watson, D. R.
    (1979) Formulations as conversational objects. InG. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 123–162). New York: Irvington.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Hester, S., & Eglin, P.
    (Eds.) (1997) Culture in action: Studies in membership categorization analysis. Washington DC: University Press of America.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Hinnenkamp, V.
    (1998) Missverständnisse in Gesprächen. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. 10.1007/978‑3‑322‑83289‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-83289-4 [Google Scholar]
  49. Jayyusi, L.
    (1984) Categorization and the moral order. Boston: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Kääntä, L., Kasper, G., & Piirainen-Marsh, A.
    (2016) Explaining Hooke’s Law: Definitional Practices in a CLIL physics classroom. Applied Linguistics, 391, 694–717. 10.1093/applin/amw025
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amw025 [Google Scholar]
  51. Lee, Y., & Mlynář, J.
    (2023) “For example” formulations and the interactional work of exemplification. Human Studies, 46(3), 1–27. 10.1007/s10746‑023‑09665‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-023-09665-7 [Google Scholar]
  52. Lerner, G. H.
    (1991) On the syntax of sentences-in-progress. Language in Society, 20(3), 441–458. 10.1017/S0047404500016572
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500016572 [Google Scholar]
  53. Levelt, W.
    (1989) Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Liberman, K.
    (2012) Semantic drift in conversation. Human Studies, 35(2), 263–277. 10.1007/s10746‑012‑9225‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-012-9225-1 [Google Scholar]
  55. 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]
  56. Lüdi, G.
    (1991) Construire ensemble les mots pour le dire. A propos de l’origine discursive des connaissances lexicales. InE. Gülich (Eds.), Linguistische Interaktionsanalysen. Beiträge zum 20. Romanistentag 1987 (pp. 193–224). Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783111346649.193
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111346649.193 [Google Scholar]
  57. Malinowski, B.
    (1923) The problem of meaning in primitive languages. InC. K. Ogden, & I. A. Richards (Eds.), The meaning of meaning (pp. 296–336). London: K. Paul, Trend, Trubner.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Maynard, D.
    (2011) On “interactional semantics” and problems of meaning. Human Studies, 34(2), 199–207. 10.1007/s10746‑011‑9188‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-011-9188-7 [Google Scholar]
  59. Mondada, L.
    (2023) The semantics of taste in interaction: Body, materiality and sensory lexicon in tasting sessions. Interactional Lingistics3 (1/2), 93–131.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Murphy, M. L.
    (2010) Lexical meaning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511780684
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511780684 [Google Scholar]
  61. Norén, K., & Linell, P.
    (2007) Meaning potentials and the interaction between lexis and contexts: An empirical substantiation. Pragmatics, 17(3), 387–416.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A., & Thompson, S. A.
    (Eds.) (1996) Interaction and grammar. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620874
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874 [Google Scholar]
  63. Pomerantz, A. & Fehr, B. J.
    (1997) Conversation analysis: An approach to the study of social action as sense making practices. InT. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as social interaction (pp. 64–91). London: Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Raymond, C. W.
    (2022) Situation and sequentiality: Notes on the study of morphology in interaction. Interactional Linguistics, 2(1), 1–41. 10.1075/il.21012.ray
     https://doi.org/10.1075/il.21012.ray [Google Scholar]
  65. 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]
  66. (1992) Lectures on conversation. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. 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]
  68. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G.
    (1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735. 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  69. Schegloff, E. A.
    (1972) Notes on a conversational practice: Formulating place. InD. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in social interaction (pp. 75–119). New York: The Free Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. (1992) Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology, 97(5), 1295–1345. 10.1086/229903
     https://doi.org/10.1086/229903 [Google Scholar]
  71. (1996) Some practices for referring to persons in talk-in-interaction: A partial sketch of a systematics. InB. A. Fox (Ed.), Studies in anaphora (pp. 437–485). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.33.14sch
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.33.14sch [Google Scholar]
  72. (1997) Whose text? Whose context?Discourse & Society, 8(2), 165–187. 10.1177/0957926597008002002
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926597008002002 [Google Scholar]
  73. Schmale, G.
    (2016) La définition-en-interaction: la définition du sens comme accomplissement interactif. Langages, 4(204), 67–82. 10.3917/lang.204.0067
     https://doi.org/10.3917/lang.204.0067 [Google Scholar]
  74. Schütz, A.
    (1932) Der sinnhafte Aufbau der sozialen Welt: Eine Einleitung in die verstehende Soziologie. Wien: Julius Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑7091‑3108‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-3108-4 [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., & Couper-Kuhlen, E.
    (Eds.) (2001) Studies in interactional linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.10
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.10 [Google Scholar]
  77. Shor, L., & Marmorstein, M.
    (2023) Self-repeat as a multimodal retraction practice: Evidence from Hebrew conversation. Interactional Linguistics3 (1/2), 132–166.
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Sidnell, J.
    (2014) The architecture of intersubjectivity revisited. InN. J. Enfield, P. Kockelman, & J. Sidnell (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of Linguistic Anthropology (364–399). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139342872.018
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139342872.018 [Google Scholar]
  79. Traverso, V. & Ravazzolo, E.
    (2016) Définitions ostensives co-construites: le cas de la visite guidée. Langages, 4(204), 43–66. 10.3917/lang.204.0043
     https://doi.org/10.3917/lang.204.0043 [Google Scholar]
  80. Weingarten, R.
    (1988) Verständigungsprobleme im Grundschulunterricht. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/il.24004.dep
Loading
  • Article Type: Editorial
Keyword(s): Interactional Linguistics; Interactional Semantics; meaning; semantics

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