1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Pragmatics
  4. Volume 24, Issue 3
  5. Article
Approaches to grammar for interactional linguistics
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238
PDF

Abstract

This article proposes that combining Conversation Analysis (CA) with Cognitive Grammar (CG) provides a fruitful framework for studying language as a socio-cognitive phenomenon. The authors first discuss two indexical phenomena, the Finnish demonstratives and the Finnish free-standing infinitives; these are first analyzed using the methods of CA, then rediscussed in the framework of CG. The description of both phenomena relies on the CG notion of grounding elements, i.e., the elements that conceptualize some facet of the ground (speech situation) as part of their meaning. The authors argue that such meaning associated with grammar includes knowledge about the schematic organization of the ground, and that the grammatical means for conceptualizing the ground make dynamic co-construction of the speech situation possible. Whereas the authors rely on the terminology of CG when describing the con-strual of the ground, they strongly underline the fact that the ways in which the ground is construed can only be found out using the methods of CA. In this way, combining CA with CG can offer us an approach where language is analyzed as the interface of the human mind and the social world.

© 2014 International Pragmatics Association
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.24.3.03ete
2015-09-01
2025-02-14

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/prag.24.3.03ete
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Auer, Peter
    (2005) Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text25.1: 7-36.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Barlow, Michael , and Suzanne Kemmer
    (eds.) (2000) Usage Based Models of Language. Stanford: CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Bybee, Joan , and Paul Hopper
    (eds.) (2001) Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Units. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/tsl.45
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.45 [Google Scholar]
  4. Cornish, Francis
    (1999) Anaphora, Discourse and Understanding: Evidence from English and French. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Couper-Kuhlen Elizabeth
    (this volume)What does grammar tell us about action?Pragmatics24.3: 623-647.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Croft, William
    (2009) Towards a social cognitive linguistics. In V. Evans , and S. Pourcel (eds.), New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.395-420. doi: 10.1075/hcp.24.25cro
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.24.25cro [Google Scholar]
  7. Diessel, Holger
    (2006) Demonstratives, joint attention, and the emergence of grammar. Cognitive Linguistics17: 463-489. doi: 10.1515/COG.2006.015
     https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2006.015 [Google Scholar]
  8. Enfield, N.J
    (2003) Demonstratives in space and interaction. Data from Lao speakers and implications for semantic analysis. Language79: 82-117. doi: 10.1353/lan.2003.0075
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2003.0075 [Google Scholar]
  9. Etelämäki, Marja
    (2006) Toiminta ja tarkoite.Tutkimus suomen pronominista “tämä” [Activity and referent. A study on the Finnish pronoun tämä ]. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. (2009) The Finnish demonstrative pronouns in light of interaction. Journal of Pragmatics41: 21-46. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.005 [Google Scholar]
  11. Etelämäki, Marja , and Minna Jaakola
    (2009)  Tota ja puhetilanteen todellisuus [The particle tota and the reality of speech situation]. Virittäjä2: 188-212.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Etelämäki, Marja , Minna Jaakola , Ilona Herlin , and Laura Visapää
    (2009) Kielioppi käsitteistyksenä ja toimintana. Kognitiivista kielioppia ja keskustelunanalyysia yhdistämässä. [Grammar as conceptualization and as action. Combining Cognitive Grammar and Conversation Analysis]. Virittäjä2: 162-187.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Evans, Nicholas , and Stephen C. Levinson
    (2009) The myth of language universals. Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences32: 429-448. doi: doi: 10.1017/S0140525X0999094X doi: 10.1017/S0140525X0999094X
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999094X [Google Scholar]
  14. Fillmore, Charles J
    (1988) The mechanisms of “construction grammar”. InProceedings of the Annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society14: 35-55.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Ford, Cecilia , and Barbara Fox
    (1996) Interactional motivations for reference formulation: He had. This guy had, a beautiful, thirty-two O:lds. In B.A. Fox (ed.), Studies in Anaphora. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.145-168. doi: 10.1075/tsl.33.06for
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.33.06for [Google Scholar]
  16. Ford, Cecilia , Barbara Fox , and Sandra A. Thompson
    (2002) Constituency and turn increments. In C. Ford , B. Fox , and S. Thompson (eds.), The Language of Turns and Sequences. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.14-38.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. (2003) Social interaction and grammar. In M. To-masello (ed.), The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, Vol. 2. London: Erlbaum, pp.119-144.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Glynn, Dylan , and Kerstin Fischer
    (eds.) (2010) Quantitative Methods in Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven Approaches. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110226423
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226423 [Google Scholar]
  19. Goffman, Erwing
    (1981) Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Goodwin, Charles
    (1979) The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation. In G. Psathas (ed.), Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington Publishers, pp.97-121.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. (2003) Pointing as Situated Practice. In S. Kita (ed.), Pointing: Where Language, Culture and Cognition Meet. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp.217-241.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Goodwin, Charles , and Marjorie Harness Goodwin
    (1987) Concurrent operations on talk: Notes on the interactive organization of assessments. Pragmatics1.1: 1-55.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Gries, Stefan Th. , and Anatol Stefanowitsch
    (eds.) (2006) Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-based Approaches to Syntax And Lexis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110197709
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197709 [Google Scholar]
  24. Günthner, Suzanne
    (2000) Vorwurfsaktivitäten in der Alltagsinteraktion. Tübingen: Niemeyer. doi: 10.1515/9783110919974
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110919974 [Google Scholar]
  25. Hakulinen, Auli
    (ed.) (1989) Suomalaisen keskustelun keinoja I. [Characteristics of Finnish Conversation I]. Kieli 4. Department of Finnish, University of Helsinki.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. (2001) On some uses of the discourse particle kyllä in Finnish conversations. In E. Couper-Kuhlen , and M. Selting (eds.), Studies in Interactional Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.171-198. doi: 10.1075/sidag.10.09hak
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.10.09hak [Google Scholar]
  27. Hakulinen, Auli , and Eeva-Leena Seppänen
    (1992) Finnish kato: from verb to particle. Journal of Pragmatics18: 527-549. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(92)90118‑U
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(92)90118-U [Google Scholar]
  28. Hanks, William F
    (1990) Referential Practice. Language and Lived Space among the Maya. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. (1992) The indexical ground of deictic reference. In A. Duranti , and C. Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking context. Language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.43-76.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. (2005) Explorations in the deictic field. Current Anthropology46.2: 191-220. doi: 10.1086/427120
     https://doi.org/10.1086/427120 [Google Scholar]
  31. Heritage, John
    (1996 [1984]) Harold Garfinkel ja etnometodologia. [Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology]. Transl. I. Arminen , O. Paloposki , A. Peräkylä , S. Vehviläinen , and S. Veijola . Helsinki: Gaudeamus.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. (2011) Territories of knowledge, territories of experience: Empathic moments in interaction. T. Stivers , L. Mondada , and J. Steensig (eds.), The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.159-183. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511921674.008
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674.008 [Google Scholar]
  33. Hasson, Uri , Asif A. Ghanzafar , Bruno Galantucci , Simon Garrod , and Christian Keysers
    (2012) Brain-to-brain coupling: A mechanism for creating and sharing a social world. Trends in Cognitive Science16: 114-121. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2011.12.007 doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2011.12.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2011.12.007 [Google Scholar]
  34. Itkonen, Terho
    (1966) Tutkimus suomen asyndetonista. [A study on Finnish asyndeton]. Virittäjä70: 402-423.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. (1979) Zur Sematik und Pragmatik der Finnischen Demonstrativa. In C. Gläser , and J. Pustzay (eds.), Festschrift für Wolfgang Schalchter zum 70. Geburtstag. Veröf fentlichungen der Societas Uralo-Altaica 12. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, pp.113-127.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Jaakola, Minna
    (2004) Suomen genetiivi [Finnish genitive]. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Jefferson, Gail
    (1988) On the sequential organization of troubles talk in ordinary conversation. Social Problems35.4: 418-442. doi: 10.2307/800595
     https://doi.org/10.2307/800595 [Google Scholar]
  38. Keevallik, Leelo
    (2003) From Interaction to Grammar. Estonian Finite Verb Forms in Conversation. Uppsala, Sweden: Studia Uralica Upsaliensia 34.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Kemmer, Suzanne
    (2011) Functions in the individual and in the community. Paper presented atthe Symposium on Functions, Functionalism and Linguistics. LSA Winter Meeting, Pittsburgh, January 2011.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Koivisto, Aino
    (2012) Discouse patterns for turn-final conjunctions. Journal of Pragmatics44: 1254– 1272. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.05.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.05.006 [Google Scholar]
  41. Laitinen, Lea
    (1995) Nollapersoona. [Zero person]. Virittäjä99: 337-358.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. (2006) Zero person in Finnish. A grammatical resource for construing human evidence. In M-L. Helasvuo , and L. Campbell (eds.), Grammar from the Human Perspective. Case, space and person in Finnish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.209-232. doi: 10.1075/cilt.277.15lai
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.277.15lai [Google Scholar]
  43. Lambrecht, Kund
    (1994) Information Structure and Sentence Form. Topic, Focus and the Mental Repre-sentatins of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620607
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620607 [Google Scholar]
  44. Langacker, Ronald W
    (1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Volume 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University press.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. (1990) Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics1: 5-38. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.5
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.5 [Google Scholar]
  46. (1991) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Volume II: Descriptive Application. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. (1999) Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110800524
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110800524 [Google Scholar]
  48. (2001) Discourse in Cognitive Grammar. Cognitive Linguistics12: 143-188. doi: 10.1515/cogl.12.2.143
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.12.2.143 [Google Scholar]
  49. (2002) Deixis and subjectivity. In F. Brisard (ed.), Grounding. The Epistemic Footing of Deixis and Reference. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp.1-28. doi: 10.1515/9783110899801.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110899801.1 [Google Scholar]
  50. (2008) Cognitive grammar. A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  51. (2014) Subordination in a dynamic account of grammar. In J. Kalliokoski , H. Sorva , and L. Visapää (eds.), Contexts of Subordination. Cognitive, typological and discourse perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.17-72. doi: 10.1075/pbns.249.02lan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.249.02lan [Google Scholar]
  52. Larjavaara, Matti
    (2007) Pragmasemantiikka [Pragma-semantics]. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Laury, Ritva
    (1997) Demonstratives in Interaction. The emergence of a definite article in Finnish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/sidag.7
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.7 [Google Scholar]
  54. (2002) Interaction, grounding and third-person reference forms. In F. Brisard (ed.), Grounding. The Epistemic Footing of Deixis and Reference. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp.83-111.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Leino, Jaakko
    (2003) Antaa se muuttua. Suomen kielen permissiivirakenne ja sen kehitys. [Let it change. The Finnish permissive construction and its history]. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Levinson, Stephen C
    (2006) On the human “interaction engine”. In S.C. Levinson , and N.J. Enfield (eds.), Roots of human sociality. Oxford: Berg, pp.39-69.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Linell, Per
    (1998) Approaching dialogue: Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/impact.3
     https://doi.org/10.1075/impact.3 [Google Scholar]
  58. (2004) On some principles of a dialogical grammar. In K. Aijmer (ed.), Dialogue Analysis VIII: Understanding and misunderstanding in dialogue. Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp.7-23.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. (2009) Rethinking language, mind, and world dialogically. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Mazeland, Harrie , and Mike Huiskes
    (2001) Dutch but as a sequential conjuction. In M. Selting , and E. Couper-Kuhlen (eds.), Studies in Interactional Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.141-169. doi: 10.1075/sidag.10.08maz
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.10.08maz [Google Scholar]
  61. Mielikäinen, Aila
    (1991) Murteiden murros: Levikkikarttoja nykypuhekielen piirteistä. [Circulation maps of features of present-day spoken language]. Jyväskylän yliopiston suomen kielen laitoksen julkaisuja 36. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Noordzij, Matthijas , Sarah E. Newman-Norlund , Jan Peter de Ruiter , Peter Hagoort , Stephen C. Levinson , and Ivan Toni
    (2009) Brain mechanisms underlying human communication. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience3: 14. doi: 10.3389/neuro.09.014.2009 doi: 10.3389/neuro.09.014.2009
     https://doi.org/10.3389/neuro.09.014.2009 [Google Scholar]
  63. Onikki-Rantajääskö, Tiina
    (2001) Sarjoja. Nykysuomen paikallissijaiset olotilanilmaukset kielen analogisuuden ilmentäjinä. Helsinki: Finnish Literatre Society.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Ono, Tsuyoshi , and Sandra A. Thompson
    (1995) What can conversation tell us about syntax?In P.W. Davis (ed.), Alternative linguistics. Descriptive and theoretical modes. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.213-271. doi: 10.1075/cilt.102.07ono
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.102.07ono [Google Scholar]
  65. Penttilä, Aarni
    (1963 [1957]) Suomen kielioppi [Finnish grammar]. 2nd, revised edition. Porvoo: WSOY.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Sacks, Harvey , Emanuel A. Schegloff , and Gail Jefferson
    (1974) A simplest systemactics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language50: 696-735. doi: 10.2307/412243
     https://doi.org/10.2307/412243 [Google Scholar]
  67. Schegloff, Emanuel A
    (1992) Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersub-jectivity in conversatin. American Journal of Sociology97: 1295-1345. doi: 10.1086/229903
     https://doi.org/10.1086/229903 [Google Scholar]
  68. (1996) Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In E. Ochs , E.A. Schegloff , and S.A. Thompson (eds.), Interaction and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.52-133. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002 [Google Scholar]
  69. (2007) Sequence Organization in Interaction. A Primer in Conversation Analysis I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  70. (2010) Some other “uh(m)”s. Discourse Processes47: 130-174. doi: 10.1080/01638530903223380
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530903223380 [Google Scholar]
  71. Schegloff, Emanuel A. , and Harvey Sacks
    (1973) Opening up closings. SemioticaVIII, 4: 289-327. doi: 10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289
     https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289 [Google Scholar]
  72. Selting, Margret
    (2010) Affectivity in conversational storytelling: An analysis of displays of anger or indignation in complaint stories. Pragmatics20: 229-277.
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Setälä, Emil Nestor
    (1880) Suomen kielen lauseoppi. Oppikirjan koe. [Finnish syntax. A textbook]. Helsinki: K.E. Holm.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Silverstein, Michael
    (1976) Shifters, verbal categories, and cultural description. In K.H. Basso , and H.A. Selby (eds.), Meaning in Anthropology. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, pp.11-55.
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Sorjonen, Marja-Leena
    (2001) Responding in Conversation. A Study of Response Particles in Finnish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/pbns.70
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.70 [Google Scholar]
  76. Visapää, Laura
    (2008) Infinitiivi ja sen infiniittisyys. Tutkimus suomen kielen itsenäisistä A-infinitiivikonstruktioista. [Infinitive and its infinity. A study of the independent A-infinitive constructions]. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. (forthcoming) Infinitives revisited: An interactional and cognitive approach. Manuscript under revision.
  78. Zlatev, Jordan A
    (2008) The co-evolution of intersubjectivity and bodily mimesis. In J. Zlatev , T. Racine , C. Sinha , and E. Itkonen (eds.), The shared mind: Perspectives on intersubjectivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.215-244 doi: 10.1075/celcr.12.13zla
     https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.12.13zla [Google Scholar]
  79. (2010) Phenomenology and cognitive linguistics. In S. Callagher (ed.), Handbook on Phenomenology and Cognitive Science. Berlin: Springer, pp.415-446. doi: 10.1007/978‑90‑481‑2646‑0_23
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2646-0_23 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/prag.24.3.03ete
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Cognitive grammar; Construal; Conversation analysis; Demonstratives; Ground; Infinitives; Interaction

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