1887
Volume 26, Issue 2-3
  • ISSN 0929-0907
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9943
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

are conceptual structures for meaning representation and interpretation in discourse. They are pervasive in everyday language as an important aspect of ongoing language processing and meaning construction (Hamawand 2016). The application of (MST) to the analysis of real, attested examples of discourse (e.g. Conversation Analysis) has been undertaken through productive exchanges (see Hougaard 20042005Oakley & Hougaard 2008Oakley 2009). The integration links external, observable language behaviors to internal, conceptual mental operations (Williams 2008), revealing that the cognitive dimensions of discursive approaches are essential to the analysis of talk-in-interaction. This study focuses on the technical aspects of Conversation Analysis in interactive academic talk and shows how MST can provide a subsequent framework for making plausible accounts of the meaning construction process underlying typical conversational moves in this unique talk setting. The data analyses show that the accessibility and selectivity of cognitive mappings contribute to shaping the structurality of meaning representation, transmission, and interpretation. The findings have implications for understanding and characterizing how co-constructed meaning enters into individual and collective conceptualization in higher education communication.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/pc.19019.pan
2021-02-12
2021-05-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ackermann, Edith
    1995 Construction and transfer of meaning through form. In Leslie P. Steffe & Jerry Gale (eds.), Constructivism in education, 341–354. NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Allen, Graham
    2011Intertextuality. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203829455
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203829455 [Google Scholar]
  3. Allwood, Jens
    2003 Meaning potentials and context: Some consequences for the analysis of variation in meaning. In Hubert Cuyckens , René Dirven & John Taylor (eds.), Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics, 29–66. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219074.29
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219074.29 [Google Scholar]
  4. Atkinson, J. Maxwell & John Heritage
    (eds.) 1984Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Barsalou, Lawrence W.
    1987 The instability of graded structure: Implications for the nature of concepts. In Ulrich Neisser (ed.), Concepts and conceptual development, 101–140. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Basturkman, Helen
    2002 Negotiating meaning in seminar-type discussion and EAP. English for Specific Purposes21(3). 233–242. 10.1016/S0889‑4906(01)00024‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(01)00024-2 [Google Scholar]
  7. Benwell, Bethan & Elizabeth Stokoe
    2002 Constructing discussion tasks in university tutorials: Shifting dynamics and identities. Discourse Studies4(4). 429–453. 10.1177/14614456020040040201
    https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456020040040201 [Google Scholar]
  8. Brandt, Line
    2008 A semiotic approach to fictive interaction as a representational strategy in communicative meaning construction. In Todd Oakley & Anders Hougaard (eds.), Mental spaces in discourse and interaction, 109–148. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/pbns.170.05bra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.170.05bra [Google Scholar]
  9. Brandt, Per Aage
    2005 Mental space and cognitive semantics: A critical comment. Journal of Pragmatics37(10). 1578–1594. 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.10.019
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.10.019 [Google Scholar]
  10. Cazden, Courtney
    1986 Classroom discourse. In Merldin C. Wittrock (ed.), Handbook of research on teaching, 432–463. New York: MacMillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Cienki, Alan
    2007 Frames, Idealized Cognitive Modes and Domains. In Dirk Geeraerts & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, 170–187. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Cobb, Paul & Erna Yackel
    1996 Constructivist, emergent, and sociocultural perspectives in the context of developmental research. Educational Psychologist3(4). 175–190. 10.1207/s15326985ep3103&4_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3103&4_3 [Google Scholar]
  13. Coulson, Seana
    2000Semantic leaps: Frame-shifting and conceptual blending in meaning construction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 2006 Constructing meaning. Metaphor and Symbol21(4). 245–266. 10.1207/s15327868ms2104_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms2104_3 [Google Scholar]
  15. Coulson, Seana & Todd Oakley
    2001 Blending basics. Cognitive Linguistics11(3–4). 175–196.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
    1992 Contextualizing discourse: The prosody of interactive repair. In Peter Auer & Also Di Luzio (eds.), The contextualization of language, 337–364. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.22.20cou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.22.20cou [Google Scholar]
  17. Croft, William
    2000Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Deppermann, Arnulf
    2012 How does ‘cognition’ matter to the analysis of talk-in-interaction?. Language Sciences34(6). 746–767. 10.1016/j.langsci.2012.04.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2012.04.013 [Google Scholar]
  19. Dinsmore, John
    1991Partitioned representations: A study in mental representation, language understanding and linguistic structure. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑3574‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3574-0 [Google Scholar]
  20. Drew, Paul & John Heritage
    1992Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Evans, Vyvyan
    2006 Lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning-construction. Cognitive Linguistics17(4). 491–534. 10.1515/COG.2006.016
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2006.016 [Google Scholar]
  22. Fauconnier, Gilles
    1994Mental spaces: aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511624582
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511624582 [Google Scholar]
  23. 1997Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139174220
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139174220 [Google Scholar]
  24. 2007 Mental Spaces. In Dirk Geeraerts & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, 351–376. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Fauconnier, Gilles & Mark Turner
    2002The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 2006 Mental Spaces. In Dirk Geeraerts (ed.), Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings, 303–371. Berlin: Monton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110199901.303
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199901.303 [Google Scholar]
  27. Fillmore, Charles J.
    1982 Frame Semantics. In Dirk Geeraerts (ed.), Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings, 373–400. Berlin; New York: Monton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Fuller, Janet M.
    2003 The influence of speaker roles on discourse marker use. Journal of Pragmatics35(1). 23–45. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)00065‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00065-6 [Google Scholar]
  29. Gardner, Rod
    2007 The Right connections: Acknowledging epistemic progression in talk. Language in Society36. 319–341.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Gärdenfors, Peter
    2014The geometry of meaning: Semantics based on conceptual spaces. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9629.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9629.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  31. Garfinkel, Harold
    1967Studies in ethnomethodology. New York: Prentice-Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 2002Ethnomethodology’s program. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Gash, Hugh
    2015 Knowledge construction: A paradigm shift. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 2015(143). 5–23. 10.1002/tl.20133
    https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.20133 [Google Scholar]
  34. Gass, Susan
    1997Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Gergen, Kenneth J.
    1985 The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. American Psychologist40(3). 266–275. 10.1037/0003‑066X.40.3.266
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.40.3.266 [Google Scholar]
  36. Goffman, Erving
    1981Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Goodwin, Charles
    2000 Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics32(10). 1489–1522. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(99)00096‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00096-X [Google Scholar]
  38. Graesser, Arthur C.
    2006 Views from a cognitive scientist: Cognitive representations underlying discourse are sometimes social. Discourse Studies8(1). 59–66. 10.1177/1461445606059555
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445606059555 [Google Scholar]
  39. Gumperz, John J.
    1992a Contextualization and understanding. In Alessandro Duranti & Charles Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon, 229–252. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 1992b Contextualization revisited. In Peter Auer & Aldo Di Luzio (eds.), The contextualization of language, 39–53. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.22.04gum
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.22.04gum [Google Scholar]
  41. Hamawand, Zeki
    2016Semantics: A cognitive account of linguistic meaning. Sheffield, UK: Equinox Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Hardin, Curtis D. & E. Tory Higgins
    1996 Shared reality: How social verification makes the subjective objective. In Richard M. Sorrentino & E. Tory Higgins (eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition, vol.3, 28–84. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Hayano, Kaoru
    2011 Claiming epistemic primacy: yo-marked assessments in Japanese. In Tanya Stivers , Lorenza Mondada , & Jakob Steensig (eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation, 58–81. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511921674.004
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674.004 [Google Scholar]
  44. Hata, Kazuki
    2016 Contrast-terminal: The sequential placement of trail-off but in extensive courses of action. Journal of Pragmatics101. 138–154. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.06.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.06.006 [Google Scholar]
  45. Heller, Vivien
    2015 Academic discourse practices in action: Invoking discursive norms in mathematics and language lessons. Linguistics and Education31. 187–206. 10.1016/j.linged.2014.12.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2014.12.003 [Google Scholar]
  46. Heritage, John
    1984Garfinkle and ethomothodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. 2011 Territories of knowledge, territories of experience: Empathic moments in interaction. In Tanya Stivers , Lorenza Mondada , & Jakob Steensig (eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation, 159–183. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511921674.008
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674.008 [Google Scholar]
  48. 2012 Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction45(1). 1–29. 10.1080/08351813.2012.646684
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684 [Google Scholar]
  49. 2013 Action formation and its epistemic (and other) backgrounds. Discourse Studies15(5). 551–578. 10.1177/1461445613501449
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445613501449 [Google Scholar]
  50. 2006 Cognition in discourse. In Hedwig te Molder & Jonathan Potter (eds.), Conversation and cognition, 184–202. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Heritage, John & Geoffrey Raymond
    2012 Navigating epistemic landscapes: Acquiescence, agency and resistance in response to polar questions. In de Ruiter Jan P. (ed.). Questions: formal, functional and interactional perspectives, 179–192. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139045414.013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139045414.013 [Google Scholar]
  52. Hopper, Robert
    2005 A cognitive agnostic in conversation analysis: When do strategies affect spoken interaction?In Hedwig te Molder & Jonathan Potter (eds.), Conversation and cognition, 134–158. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511489990.007
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511489990.007 [Google Scholar]
  53. Hougaard, Anders
    2004 ‘How’re we doing’: An interactional approach to cognitive processes of online meaning construction. Unpublished PhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 2005 Conceptual disintegration and blending in interactional sequences: A discussion of new phenomena, processes vs. products, and methodology. Journal of Pragmatics37(10). 1653–1685. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.01.014
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.01.014 [Google Scholar]
  55. 2008 Compression in interaction. In Todd Oakley & Anders Hougaard (eds.), Mental spaces in discourse and interaction, 179–208. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.170.07hou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.170.07hou [Google Scholar]
  56. Hougaard, Anders & Todd Oakley
    2008 Mental spaces and discourse analysis. In Todd Oakley , & Anders Hougaard (eds.), Mental spaces in discourse and interaction, 1–26. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.170.01hou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.170.01hou [Google Scholar]
  57. Hougaard, G. Rasmus
    2008 ‘Mental spaces’ and ‘blending’ in discourse and interaction: A response. In Todd Oakley & Anders Hougaard (eds.), Mental spaces in discourse and interaction, 247–250. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Jakobson, Roman
    1990 The speech event and the functions of language. In Roman Jakobson , Linda R. Waugh and Monique Monville-Burston (eds.), On Language, 69–79. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Jefferson, Gail
    1986 Notes on ‘latency’ in overlap onset. Human Studies9(2). 153–183. 10.1007/BF00148125
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00148125 [Google Scholar]
  60. 2004 Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Gene H. Lerner (ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the first generation, 13–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.125.02jef
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef [Google Scholar]
  61. Kamio, Akio
    1997Territory of information. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.48
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.48 [Google Scholar]
  62. Kaufer, David S. & Kathleen Carley
    1993Communication at a distance: The influence of print on sociocultural organization and change. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Kern, Friederike & Margret Selting
    2012 Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics. In Carol A. Chapelle (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Last retrived fromhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/. doi:  10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0203. (9 April, 2019)
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0203 [Google Scholar]
  64. Lantolf, James P.
    (ed.) 2000Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Levinson, Stephen C.
    2003 Contextualizing ‘contextualization cues’. In Susan L. Eerdmans , Carlo L. Prevignano & Paul J. Thibault (eds.), Language and interaction: Discussions with John J. Gumperz, 31–39. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. 10.1075/z.117.04lev
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.117.04lev [Google Scholar]
  66. Liddicoat, Anthony J.
    2007An introduction to Conversation Analysis. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Maynard, Douglas W.
    2003Bad news, good news: Conversational order in everyday talk and clinical settings. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. McCarthy, Michael
    2003 Talking back: ‘Small’ interactional response tokens in everyday conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction36(1). 33–63. 10.1207/S15327973RLSI3601_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3601_3 [Google Scholar]
  69. Minsky, Marvin
    1975 A framework for representing knowledge. In Patrick Henry Winston (ed.), The Psychology of Computer Vision, 211–277. New York: McGraw-Hill.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Miranda, Shaila M. & Carol Saunders
    2003 The social construction of meaning: An alternative perspective on information sharing. Information System Research14(1). 87–106. 10.1287/isre.14.1.87.14765
    https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.14.1.87.14765 [Google Scholar]
  71. Oakley, Todd
    2009From attention to meaning: Explorations in semiotics, linguistics, and rhetoric. Berlin: Peter Lang. 10.3726/978‑3‑0351‑0782‑1
    https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-0351-0782-1 [Google Scholar]
  72. Oakley, Todd & Anders Hougaard
    (eds.) 2008Mental spaces in discourse and interaction. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.170
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.170 [Google Scholar]
  73. Ogden, Charles Kay & Ivor Armstrong Richards
    1989The meaning of meaning. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Orr, Mary
    2003Intertextuality: Debates and contexts. Malden, USA: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Pan, Yuling
    2012 Interactional Linguistics as a research perspective. In Carol A. Chapelle (ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Last retrieved fromhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/. doi:  10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0552. (9 April, 2019.)
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0552 [Google Scholar]
  76. Parrill, Fey & Eve Sweetser
    2004 What we mean by meaning: Conceptual integration in gesture analysis and transcription. Gesture4(2). 197–219. 10.1075/gest.4.2.05par
    https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.4.2.05par [Google Scholar]
  77. Pascual, Esther
    2008 Fictive interaction blends in everyday life and courtroom settings. In Todd Oakley & Anders Hougaard (eds.), Mental spaces in discourse and interaction, 79–108. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.170.04pas
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.170.04pas [Google Scholar]
  78. Pena-Shaff, Judith B. & Craig Nicholls
    2004 Analyzing student interactions and meaning construction in computer bulletin board discussions. Computer and Education42(3). 243–265. 10.1016/j.compedu.2003.08.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2003.08.003 [Google Scholar]
  79. Pica, Teresa
    1994 Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second language learning conditions, processes and outcomes?Language Learning44(3). 493–527. 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1994.tb01115.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1994.tb01115.x [Google Scholar]
  80. Potter, Jonathan & Hedwig te Molder
    2005Conversation and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Raymond, Geoffrey & John Heritage
    2006 The epistemics of social relations: Owning grandchildren. Language in Society35(5). 677–705. 10.1017/S0047404506060325
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404506060325 [Google Scholar]
  82. Rommetveit, Ragnar
    1992 Outlines of a dialogically based social-cognitive approach to human cognition and communication. In Astri Heen Wold (ed.), The dialogical alternative: Towards a theory of language and mind, 19–44. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Sacks, Harvey
    1984 On doing ‘being ordinary’. In J. Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage (eds.), Structures of social interaction, 413–429. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Sacks, Harvey , Emanuel A. Schegloff & Gail Jefferson
    1974 A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language50(4). 696–735. 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  85. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    1972 Notes on a conversational practice: Formulating place. In David Sudnow (ed.), Studies in social interaction, 75–119. New York: The Free Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  86. 1992 In another context. In Alessandro Duranti & Charles Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon, 191–227. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  87. 1996 Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In Elinor Ochs , Emanuel A. Schegloff & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Interaction and grammar, 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002 [Google Scholar]
  88. Schegloff, Emanuel A. & Harvey Sacks
    1973 Opening up closings. Semiotica8(4). 289–327. 10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289
    https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289 [Google Scholar]
  89. Schiffrin, Deborah
    1987Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511611841
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841 [Google Scholar]
  90. Schourup, Lawrence
    1999 Discourse markers: Tutorial overview. Lingua107(3–4). 227–265. 10.1016/S0024‑3841(96)90026‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(96)90026-1 [Google Scholar]
  91. Schwitalla, Johannes
    1992 Comments on Margret Selting: Intonation as a contextualization device. In Peter Auer & Aldo Di Luzio (eds.), The contextualization of language, 259–271. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.22.17sch
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.22.17sch [Google Scholar]
  92. Scott, Mike
    1999WordSmith tools help manual, version 3.0. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Selting, Margret
    1992 Intonation as a contextualization device: Case studies on the role of prosody, especially intonation, in contextualizing story telling in conversation. In Peter Auer & Aldo Di Luzio (eds.), The contextualization of language, 233–258. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.22.16sel
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.22.16sel [Google Scholar]
  94. Sidnell, Jack
    2005Talk and practical epistemology: The social life of knowledge in a Caribbean community. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.142
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.142 [Google Scholar]
  95. Smith, Sara W. & Andreas H. Jucker
    1998 Interactive aspects of reference assignment in conversations. Pragmatics & Cognition6(1–2). 153–187. 10.1075/pc.6.1‑2.09smi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.6.1-2.09smi [Google Scholar]
  96. Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson
    1995Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Stahl, Gerry
    2006Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/3372.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3372.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  98. Stivers, Tanya , Lorenza Mondada & Jakob Steensig
    2011 Knowledge, morality and affiliation in social interaction. In Tanya Stivers , Lorenza Mondada & Jakob Steensig (eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation, 3–26. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511921674.002
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674.002 [Google Scholar]
  99. Stubbs, Michael
    2010 Three concepts of keywords. In Marina Bondi & Mike Scott (eds.), Keyness in texts, 21–42. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.41.03stu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.41.03stu [Google Scholar]
  100. Sweetser, Eve & Gilles Fauconnier
    1996 Cognitive links and domains: Basic aspects of Mental Space Theory. In Gilles Fauconnier & Eve Sweetser (eds.), Spaces, worlds and grammars, 1–28. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Terasaki, Alene K.
    2004 Pre-announcement sequences in conversation. In Gene H. Lerner (ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the first generation, 171–223. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.125.11ter
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.11ter [Google Scholar]
  102. Turner, Mark
    2001Cognitive dimensions of social science: The way we think about politics, economics, law, and society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Tyler, Andrea & Vyvyan Evans
    2001 Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: The case of ‘over’. Language77(4). 724–765. 10.1353/lan.2001.0250
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2001.0250 [Google Scholar]
  104. van Boxtel, Carla , Jos van der Linden & Gellof Kanselaar
    2000 Collaborative learning tasks and the elaboration of conceptual knowledge. Learning and Instruction10(4). 311–330. 10.1016/S0959‑4752(00)00002‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(00)00002-5 [Google Scholar]
  105. Walsh, Steve
    2014Newcastle University Corpus of Academic Spoken English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Williams, Robert F.
    2008 Guided conceptualization: Mental spaces in institutional discourse. In Todd Oakley & Anders Hougaard (eds.), Mental spaces in discourse and interaction, 209–234. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.170.08wil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.170.08wil [Google Scholar]
  107. Yin, Robert K.
    2014Case study research: Design and methods. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Yin, Robert K. & Darnella Davis
    2007 Adding new dimensions to case study evaluations: The case of evaluating comprehensive reforms. In George Julnes & Debra J. Rog (eds.), Informing federal policies for evaluation methodology, 75–93. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Pan, Yun
    2017 Raising trainee translators’ critical language awareness in news translation. Asia Pacific Translation and Intercultural Studies2. 160–190. 10.1080/23306343.2017.1297283
    https://doi.org/10.1080/23306343.2017.1297283 [Google Scholar]
  110. 2020 Corpus linguistics approaches to trainee translators’ framing practice in news translation. The International Journal for Translation and Interpreting Research12(1). 90–114. 10.12807/ti.112201.2020.a06
    https://doi.org/10.12807/ti.112201.2020.a06 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/pc.19019.pan
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/pc.19019.pan
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Conversation Analysis; meaning construction; Mental Space Theory
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