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 epilogue to the Special Issue on Interactional Semantics discusses the contributions to the Special Issue in relation to other research to support three arguments. (i) The choice of Interactional Semantics to take the referential function of language (Jakobson) as its object of research is a welcome choice. (ii) The use of the term ‘meaning’ for this research object is potentially confusing and could be replaced by ‘referential work’. (iii) A research topic which could be included in Interactional Semantics and has not been articulated as such, is the way in which the choice of a referential expression establishes the referent as a particular social reality and is a tacit proposal to the interlocutors to talk about this referent in these terms.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/il.24008.koo
2024-04-30
2024-12-08

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/il.24008.koo
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Austin, J. L.
    (1962) How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Bilmes, J.
    (2015) The structure of meaning in talk: Explorations in category analysis. VolumeI1: Co-categorization, contrast, and hierarchy. www2.hawaii.edu/~bilmes/structure_of_meaning.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  3. (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]
  4. Bühler, K.
    (1982 [1934]) Sprachtheorie. Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Couper-Kuhlen, E.
    (2012) Some truths and untruths about final intonation in conversational questions. InJan P. de Ruiter (Ed.) Questions: formal, functional and interactional perspectives (pp.123–145). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139045414.009
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139045414.009 [Google Scholar]
  6. (2014) What does grammar tell us about action?Pragmatics24(3), 623–647.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Couper-Kuhlen, E. & M. Selting
    (Eds.) (1996) Prosody in conversation: interactional studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511597862
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597862 [Google Scholar]
  8. (2018) Interactional Linguistics. Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Deppermann, A.
    (2007) Grammatik und Semantik aus gesprächsanalytischer Sicht. Berlin: De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. (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]
  11. (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. 10.1075/il.23002.dep
     https://doi.org/10.1075/il.23002.dep [Google Scholar]
  12. Depperman, A. & E. De Stefani
    (this issue). Editorial: Meaning in Interaction, Interactional Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Deppermann, A. & M. Haugh
    (Eds.) (2022) Action Ascription in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108673419
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108673419 [Google Scholar]
  14. De Stefani, E.
    (2023) Displaying a negative stance by questioning meaning. The Italian format Che cosa vuol dire X? (‘Whatdoes X mean?’). Interactional Linguistics3 (1/2), 40–66.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Edwards, D.
    (1991) Categories are for talking: On the cognitive and discursive bases of categorization. Theory & Psychology1(4), 515–542. 10.1177/0959354391014007
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354391014007 [Google Scholar]
  16. (1997) Discourse and Cognition. London: Sage. 10.4135/9781446221785
     https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446221785 [Google Scholar]
  17. (1998) The Relevant Thing about Her: Social Identity Categories in Use. InC. Antaki & S. Widdicombe (Eds.) Identities in Talk (pp.15–33). London: Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Edwards, D. & J. Potter
    (1992) Discursive Psychology. London: Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Enfield, N. J.
    (2022) Language vs. Reality. Why Language is Good for Lawyers and Bad for Scientists. Cambridge: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/12258.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/12258.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  20. Garfinkel, H.
    (1967) Studies in Ethnomethodology. Prentice Hall: Polity Press
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Gumperz, J. J. & D. Hymes
    (Eds.) (1986 [1972]) Directions in Sociolinguistics. The Ethnography of Communication. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Helmer, H.
    (2023) Ad-hoc-compounds in spoken German: (When) do we need compositionality?Interactional Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Heritage, J.
    (2007) Intersubjectivity and progressivity in person (and place) reference. InN. J. Enfield & T. Stivers (Eds.) Person Reference in Interaction. Linguistic, cultural and social perspectives (pp.255–280). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486746.012
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486746.012 [Google Scholar]
  24. (2012) Epistemics in Action: Action Formation and Territories of Knowledge, Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29. 10.1080/08351813.2012.646684
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684 [Google Scholar]
  25. (2013) Epistemics in Conversation. In: J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.) The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 370–394.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Heritage, J. & T. Stivers
    (2013) Conversation Analysis and Sociology. InJ. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.) The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp.659–673). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Jakobson, R.
    (1960) Linguistics and Poetics. InT. Sebeok (Ed.) Style in Language (pp.350–377). Cambridge: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Koole, T. & M. N. Gosen
    (2024) Scopes of recipiency: An organization of responses to informings. Journal of Pragmatics2221, 25–39. 10.1016/j.pragma.2024.01.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2024.01.004 [Google Scholar]
  29. Lyons, J.
    (1977) Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Maynard, D. W.
    (2013) Everyone and No One to Turn to. Intellectual Roots and Contexts for Conversation Analysis. InJ. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.) The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp.11–31). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Mazeland, H. & L. Plug
    (2010) Doing confirmation with ja/nee hoor. Sequential and prosodic characteristics of a Dutch discourse particle. InD. Barth-Weingarten, E. Reber & M. Selting (Eds.) Prosody in Interaction (pp.161 – 188). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.23.14maz
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.23.14maz [Google Scholar]
  32. Mondada, L.
    (2011) Understanding as an embodied, situated and sequential achievement in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics431, 542–552. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.019
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.019 [Google Scholar]
  33. (2021) Orchestrating Multi-sensoriality in Tasting Sessions: Sensing Bodies, Normativity, and Language. Symbolic Interaction44(1), 63–86. 10.1002/symb.472
     https://doi.org/10.1002/symb.472 [Google Scholar]
  34. (2023) The semantics of taste in interaction: body, materiality and sensory lexicon in tasting sessions. Interactional Linguistics3 (1/2), 93–131. 10.1075/il.22011.mon
     https://doi.org/10.1075/il.22011.mon [Google Scholar]
  35. Pomerantz, A.
    (1986) Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies9(2–3), 219–229. 10.1007/BF00148128
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00148128 [Google Scholar]
  36. Potter, J.
    (1996) Representing Reality. Discourse, Rhetoric and Social Construction. London: Sage. 10.4135/9781446222119
     https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446222119 [Google Scholar]
  37. Raymond, G. & J. Heritage
    (2006) The epistemics of social relations: Owning grandchildren. Language in Society351, 677–705. 10.1017/S0047404506060325
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404506060325 [Google Scholar]
  38. 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). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. (1992) Lectures on Conversation. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Sacks, H. & E. A. Schegloff
    (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]
  41. Saeed, J. I.
    (2015) Semantics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Schegloff, E. A.
    (1972) Notes on a conversational practice: Formulating place. InD. Sudnow (Ed.) Studies in social interaction (pp.75–119). New York: Free Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. (2007) Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  44. Schutz, A.
    (1962) The Problem of Social Reality. Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Searle, J. R.
    (1969) Speech Acts. An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  46. Shor, L. & M. Marmorstein
    (2023) Self-repeat as a multimodal retraction practice: Evidence from Hebrew conversation. Interactional Linguistics3 (1/2), 132–166. 10.1075/il.22008.sho
     https://doi.org/10.1075/il.22008.sho [Google Scholar]
  47. Stevanovic, M. & A. Peräkylä
    (2012) Deontic Authority in Interaction: The Right to Announce, Propose, and Decide. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(3), 297–321. 10.1080/08351813.2012.699260
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.699260 [Google Scholar]
  48. Stokoe, E.
    (2012) Moving forward with membership categorization analysis: Methods for systematic analysis. Discourse Studies, 14(3), 277–303. 10.1177/1461445612441534
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612441534 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/il.24008.koo
Loading
  • Article Type: Editorial
Keyword(s): conversation analysis; interactional linguistics; interactional semantics; linguistic semantics; meaning; referential work

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