1887
Volume 17, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238

Abstract

This article is a contribution to a theory of lexical semantics and situated sense-making which aims at explaining how meaning is constituted in and across contexts, in a dialogical interplay between lexical resources and aspects of situations. We propose that the semantics of words or grammatical constructions are not just abstract schemas, to be filled in by pragmatic enrichment in situated uses. Nor are words associated with simple lists of different usages. Instead, we propose a theory of . The basic assumptions of such a theory are that linguistic resources provide language users with semantic resources to understand, say and mean specific things in particular usage events, and that this always involves an interplay with contextual factors. The study reported here is an exercise in empirical pragmatics, using authentic data from language use. We explore the meaning potential of the Swedish adjective ‘new’ by examining its interplay with a specific grammatical construction, (‘x-and-x’: in English roughly ‘x, it depends on what you mean by x’). - is a conventionalised and (largely) conversational practice, by which language users activate and negotiate parts of the meaning potential of a word , such as , in order to establish a local situated meaning of it. In doing so, they exploit their knowledge of what x can mean, performing what can be seen as users´ semantic analyses in authentic communicative interaction. Our study can also be read as a contribution to Construction Grammar, attempting to develop a more dynamic, interactional interpretation of this theory than has previously been put forward in the literature.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.17.3.03nor
2007-01-01
2019-12-12
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Allwood, J
    (1998) Semantics as meaning determination with semantic-epistemic operations. In J. Allwood & P. Gärdenfors (eds.), Cognitive semantics: Meaning and cognition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 1-18. doi: 10.1075/pbns.55.02all
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.55.02all [Google Scholar]
  2. (2003) Meaning potential and context. Some consequences for the analysis of variation in meaning. In H. Cuyckens , R. Dirven & J.R. Taylor (eds.), Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 29-65.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Auer, P
    (1996) The pre-front field in spoken German and its relevance as a grammaticalization position. Pragmatics 6.3: 295-322.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bezuidenhout, A
    (2002) Truth-conditional pragmatics. Philosophical Perspectives16: 105-134.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Blank, A
    (2003) Polysemy in the lexicon and in discourse. In B. Nerlich , Z. Todd , V. Herman & D. Clarke (eds.), Polysemy: Flexible patterns of meaning in mind and language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 267-293.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Butt, D. , & C.M.I.M. Matthiessen
    (forthcoming) The meaning potential of language: Mapping meaning systemically. Centre for Language in Social Life, Department of Linguistics, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Cappelen, H. , and E. Lepore
    (2005) Insensitive semantics. A defense of semantic minimalism and speech act pluralism. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Carston. R
    (2002) Thoughts and utterances. The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford etc.: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Carston, R
    (2005) Pragmatic inference – reflective or reflexive?Plenary lecture read at 9th International Pragmatics Conference, Riva del Garda, Italy, 10-15 July, 2005.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Couper-Kuhlen, E. , and M. Selting
    (2005) A linguistic practice for retracting overstatements: ‘Concessive repair’. In A. Hakulinen & M. Selting (eds.), Syntax and lexis in conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 257-288. doi: 10.1075/sidag.17
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/sidag.17 [Google Scholar]
  11. Croft, W. , and A. Cruse
    (2004) Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511803864
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864 [Google Scholar]
  12. Deppermann, A
    (2005) Conversational interpretation of lexical items and conversational contrasting. In A. Hakulinen & M. Selting (eds.), Syntax and lexis in conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 289-318. doi: 10.1075/sidag.17
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/sidag.17 [Google Scholar]
  13. Ekberg, L
    (2003) Transformations on image schemas and cross-linguistic polysemy. InNordlund 24. Småskrifter från Institutionen för Nordiska språk, Lund University.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Evans, V
    (2006) Lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning construction. Cognitive Linguistics17: 491-534. doi: 10.1515/COG.2006.016
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/COG.2006.016 [Google Scholar]
  15. Fauconnier, G. , and M. Turner
    (2003) Polysemy and conceptual blending. In Nerlich , et al. (2003), pp. 79-94.
  16. Fetzer, A
    (2004) Recontextualizing context: Grammaticality meets appropriateness. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/pbns.121
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/pbns.121 [Google Scholar]
  17. Fillmore, Ch. , P. Kay , and Mary K. O´Connor
    (1988) Regularity and idiomatiticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone . Language64: 501-38. doi: 10.2307/414531
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414531 [Google Scholar]
  18. Fillmore, Ch
    (2005) FrameNet. Retrieved fromframenet.icsi.berkeley.edu/January 29, 2006
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Fretheim, T
    (2005) Is there a rigid boundary between semantics and pragmatics? Working Papers ISK, 2/2005. NTNU; Trodheim: Department of Language and Communication Studies, pp. 113-129.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. (2005/in press) English then and Norwegian da/så compared: A relevance-theoretic account. Ms. Trondheim: Dept of Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Fried, M. , and J.-O. Östman
    (2005) Construction grammar: A thumbnail sketch. In M. Fried & J.-O. Östman (eds.), Construction Grammar in a cross-language perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/cal.3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.3 [Google Scholar]
  22. Gibson, J
    (1966) The senses considered as perceptual systems. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. (1979) The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Goldberg, A
    (1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Halliday, M
    (1973) Explorations in the functions of language. London: Edward Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Hasan, R
    (1996) Ways of saying: Ways of meaning. Edited by C. Cloran , D. Butt & G. Williams . London: Cassell.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Kay, P
    (2004) Pragmatic aspects of grammatical constructions. In L. Horn & G. Ward (eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 675-700.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Kilgariff, A
    (2003) “I don´t believe in word senses”. In B. Nerlich , Z. Todd , V. Herman & D. Clarke (eds.), Polysemy: Flexible patterns of meaning in mind and language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 361-391.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Lähteenmäki, M
    (2004) Between relativism and absolutism: Towards an emergentist definition of meaning potential. In F. Bostad , C. Brandist , L.S. Evensen & H.C. Faber (eds.), Bakhtinian perspectives on language and culture: Meaning in language, art and new media. Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp. 91-113.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Langacker, R
    (1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol.1. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. (2006) On the continuous debate about discreteness. Cognitive Linguistics17: 107-151. doi: 10.1515/COG.2006.003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2006.003 [Google Scholar]
  32. Lindström, J. , & P. Linell
    (2007)  Roli å roli: X-och-x som samtalspraktik och grammatisk konstruktion. (“Funny and funny: X-och-x as a conversational practice and a grammatical construction”). Forthc.in E. Engdahl & A.-M. Londen (eds.), Studier i svenskt samtalsspråk, 2. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Linell, P
    (1998) Approaching dialogue. Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspectives. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/impact.3
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/impact.3 [Google Scholar]
  34. (2006) Towards a dialogical linguistics. In M. Lähteenmäki , H. Dufva , S. Leppänen & P. Varis (eds.), Proceedings of the XIIth International Bakhtin Conference, Jyväskylä, Finland, 18-22July 2005 (e-book). Jyväskylä: Department of Languages, pp. 157-172.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Linell, P. , and K. Norén
    (2005a) Vad man kan göra: Om den dialogiska bestämningen av pronomens användningsbetydelser. [“What man can do: On the dialogical determination of the meanings in use of pronouns”] In I. Bäcklund , et al . (eds.), Text i arbete / Text at work. Festskrift till Britt-Louise Gunnarsson den12januari 2005. Uppsala: Institutionen för nordiska språk vid Uppsala universitet, pp. 115-124.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. (2005b)  Ny och ny – en dialogisk analys av meningspotentialen hos lexemet ny i svenskan. [“New and new – a dialogical analysis of the meaning potential of the lexeme ny ’new’ in Swedish.”] In B. Melander , et al . (eds.). Språk i tid. Studier tillägnade Mats Thelander på 60-årsdagen. (Skrifter utgivna av Institutionen för nordiska språk vid Uppsala universitet, 67.) Uppsala, pp. 231-242.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Marková, I
    (1992) On structure and dialogicity in Prague semiotics. In A.H. Wold (ed.), The dialogical alternative: Towards a theory of language and mind. Oslo: Oslo University Press, pp. 45-63.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Mukařovský, J
    (1977) On poetic language. In J. Burbank & P. Steiner (eds.), The word and verbal art. New Haven: Yale University Press. [Czech original published in 1940].
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Nationalencyklopediens ordbok
    1995/96 (“Dictionary of the National Encyclopaedia”). Språkdata, Göteborgs universitet and Bra Böcker, Höganäs, Sweden.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Nerlich, B. , Z. Todd , V. Herman , and D. Clarke
    (2003) (eds.)Polysemy: Flexible patterns of meaning in mind and language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110895698
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110895698 [Google Scholar]
  41. Norén, K
    (2006) Både ork och lust. Om semantisk påverkan mellan ord i ordpar. [“Both ‘strength’ and ‘disposition’. On semantic influences between words in word pairs”]. In S. Ask , et al . (eds.), Lekt och lärt: Festskrift till Jan Einarsson 2006. (Reports from Växjö University – Humanities), pp. 189-202.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Norman, D.A
    (1990) The design of everyday things. New York: Doubleday.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Recanati, F
    (2004) Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Rieger, B
    (2005) Semiotics and computational linguistics: On semiotic cognitive information processing. www.uni-trier.de/.../ldv_archiv/http/www/public_html/dvpage/rieger/pub/aufsaetze/kaczad98/kaczad98.html. Retrieved Dec. 18, 2005.
  45. Rommetveit, R
    (1974) On message structure. London: Wiley.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. (1992) Outlines of a dialogically based social-cognitive approach to human cognition and communication. In A.H. Wold (ed.), The dialogical alternative: Towards a theory of language and mind. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, pp. 19-44.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. SAOB = Ordbok öfver svenska språket utgifven av Svenska Akademien
    1898- Stockholm. [“Dictionary of the Swedish language by the Swedish Academy”].
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Selting, M
    (2005) Syntax and prosody as methods for the construction and identification of turn-constructional units in conversation. InHakulinen & Selting (2005), pp. 17-44.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Sinclair, J
    (2004) Trust the text. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Teleman, U. , S. Hellberg , & E. Andersson
    (1999) Svenska Akademiens Grammatik. Vol. 4. Stockholm: Norstedt.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Thibault, P
    (2005) The interpersonal gateway to the meaning of mind: The inter-and intraorganism perspective on language. In R. Hasan , C. Matthiessen & J. Webster (eds.), Continuing discourse on language: A functional perspective. London: Equinox, pp. 117-156.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Zlatev, J
    (2003) Polysemy or generality? Mu. In H. Cuyckens , R. Dirven & J.R. Taylor (eds.), Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 447-494.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.17.3.03nor
Loading
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