1887
Volume 43, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0378-4177
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9978
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Linguistic units as traditionally conceived by linguists favor structural features and referential meanings. In this paper, we propose a new way of understanding the nature of linguistic units by analyzing the interaction of multiple semiotic resources (gestures, bodily movement, eye gaze speech) in social interaction. We focus on the discursive activity of “categorizing” in different situations and in two languages, English and Mandarin Chinese. Categorizing is broadly defined as any activity that involves explicitly or implicitly classifying people or objects into types. We show that the meanings of linguistic units (including the referential) may be distorted or incomplete when forms are extracted from their contexts and analyzed in isolation. Instead, we argue that an interactional, activity-based view, focusing on the deployment of linguistic elements as part of a coordinated system of semiotic resources, will enable us to understand the nature of linguistic units in a more productive way.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/sl.16066.may
2019-11-13
2020-05-31
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Austin, John
    1962How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Blumer, Herbert
    1969Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Butler, Carly & Ann Weatherall
    2006 “No, we’re not playing families”: Membership categorization in children’s play. Research on Language and Social Interaction39(4). 441–470. 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3904_4
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3904_4 [Google Scholar]
  4. Drew, Paul
    2005 Is confusion a state of mind?InHedwig te Molder & Jonathan Potter (eds.), Conversation and cognition, 161–183. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511489990.008
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511489990.008 [Google Scholar]
  5. Du Bois, John W.
    1980 Beyond definiteness: The trace of identity in discourse. InWallace L. Chafe (ed.), The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production, 203–74. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 2007 The stance triangle. InRobert Englebretson (ed.), Stancetaking in discourse, 139–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.164.07du
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.07du [Google Scholar]
  7. 2014 Towards a dialogic syntax. Cognitive Linguistics25(3). 359–410. 10.1515/cog‑2014‑0024
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0024 [Google Scholar]
  8. Edwards, Derek
    1991 Categories are for talking: On the cognitive and discursive bases of categorization. Theory and Psychology1(4). 515–542. 10.1177/0959354391014007
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354391014007 [Google Scholar]
  9. 1997Discourse and cognition. London: Sage Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Edwards, Derek & Jonathan Potter
    2005 Discursive psychology, mental states and descriptions. InHedwig te Molder & Jonathan Potter (eds.), Conversation and cognition, 241–259. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511489990.012
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511489990.012 [Google Scholar]
  11. Fitzgerald, Richard, William Housley & Carly W. Butler
    2009 Omnirelevance and interactional context. Australian Journal of Communication36(3). 45–64.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Ford, Cecilia, Barbara Fox and Sandra A. Thompson
    2013 Units and/or action trajectories?: The language of grammatical categories and the language of social action. InBeatrice Szczepek and Geoffrey Raymond (eds.), Units of talk – Units of action, 13–55. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.25.02for
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.25.02for [Google Scholar]
  13. Garot, Robert & Tim Berard
    2011 Ethnomethodology and membership categorization analysis. InRuth Wodak, Barbara Johnstone & Paul Kerswill (eds.), The Sage handbook of sociolinguistics, 125–138. London: Sage. 10.4135/9781446200957.n10
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446200957.n10 [Google Scholar]
  14. Goffman, Erving
    1974Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of the experience. New York: Harper Colophon.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Goodwin, Charles
    1979 The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation. InGeorge Psathas (ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology, 97–121. New York: Irvington.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 1980 Restarts, pauses, and the achievement of mutual gaze at turn-beginning. Sociological Inquiry50(3–4). 272–302. 10.1111/j.1475‑682X.1980.tb00023.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00023.x [Google Scholar]
  17. 1986 Gestures as a resource for the organization of mutual attention. Semiotica62(1/2). 29–49.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 1994 Professional vision. American Anthropologist96(3). 606–633. 10.1525/aa.1994.96.3.02a00100
    https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1994.96.3.02a00100 [Google Scholar]
  19. 1996 Transparent vision. InElinor Ochs, Emanuel Schegloff & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Interaction and grammar, 370–404. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.008
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.008 [Google Scholar]
  20. 2003 Pointing as situated practice. InSotaro Kita (ed.), Pointing: Where language, culture and cognition meet, 217–241. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 2011 Contextures of action. InJürgen Streek, Charles Goodwin & Curtis LeBaron (eds.), Embodied interaction: Language and body in the material world, 182–193. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Goodwin, Charles & Marjorie Harness Goodwin
    1987 Concurrent operations on talk: Notes on the interactive organization of assessments. Pragmatics1. 1–54.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Gu, Yueguo
    1990 Politeness phenomena in Modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics14. 237–257. 10.1016/0378‑2166(90)90082‑O
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90082-O [Google Scholar]
  24. Gumperz, John J.
    1992 Contextualization and understanding. InAlessandro Duranti & Charles Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon, 229–252. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Heritage, John
    2012 The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction45(1). 30–52. 10.1080/08351813.2012.646685
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646685 [Google Scholar]
  26. Hester, Stephen, & Peter Eglin
    1997 Membership categorization analysis: An introduction. InStephen Hester & Peter Eglin (eds.), Culture in action: Studies in membership categorization analysis, 1–23. Washington, DC: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis and University Press of America.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Lakoff, George
    1987Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  28. Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson
    1980Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Levinson, Stephen C.
    1983Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813313
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813313 [Google Scholar]
  30. 2013 Action formation and ascription. InJack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis, 103–130. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Mayes, Patricia
    2010 The discursive construction of identity and power in the critical classroom: Implications for applied critical theories. Discourse & Society21(2). 189–210. 10.1177/0957926509353846
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926509353846 [Google Scholar]
  32. 2015 Becoming an autonomous writer: Epistemic stance displays and membership categorization in the writing conference. Discourse Studies17(6). 1–18. 10.1177/1461445615602375
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445615602375 [Google Scholar]
  33. Ochs, Elinor, Patrick Gonzales, & Sally Jacoby
    1996 “When I come down, I’m in the domain state”: Grammar and graphic representation in the interpretative activity of physicists. InElinor Ochs, Emanuel Schegloff & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Interaction and grammar, 328–369. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.007
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.007 [Google Scholar]
  34. Pomerantz, Anita
    1984 Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. InJohn M. Atkinson & John Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Rosch, Eleanor
    1978 Principles of categorization. InEleanor Rosch & Barbara B. Lloyd (eds.), Cognition and categorization, 27–48. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Sacks, Harvey
    1972 On the analyzability of stories by children. InJohn J. Gumperz & Dell Hymes (eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication, 325–345. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 1992Lectures on conversation. (Vol.1, G. Jefferson, ed.) Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Gail Jefferson
    1974 A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language50. 696–735. 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  39. Sapir, Edward
    1925 Sound patterns of language. Language1(2). 37–51. 10.2307/409004
    https://doi.org/10.2307/409004 [Google Scholar]
  40. Schegloff, Emmanuel A.
    2007a A tutorial on membership categorization. Journal of Pragmatics39. 462–482. 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.007 [Google Scholar]
  41. 2007bSequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  42. Silverstein, Michael
    1976 Shifters, linguistic categories, and cultural description. InKeith H. Basso & Henry A. Selby (eds.), Meaning in anthropology, 11–55. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Stokoe, Elizabeth
    2012 Moving forward with membership categorization analysis: Methods for systematic analysis. Discourse Studies14(3). 277–303. doi:  10.1177/1461445612441534
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612441534 [Google Scholar]
  44. Tannen, Deborah
    1993 (ed.) Framing in discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Tao, Hongyin
    1999 Body movement and participant alignment in Mandarin Chinese conversational interactions. Chicago Linguistic Society35. 125–139.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Thibodeau, Paul H. & Lera Boroditsky
    2011 Metaphors we think with: The role of metaphor in reasoning. PLoS ONE6(2). doi:  10.1371/journal.pone.0016782
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0016782 [Google Scholar]
  47. 2013 Natural language metaphors covertly influence reasoning. PLoS ONE8(1). e52961. doi:  10.1371/journal.pone.0052961
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0052961 [Google Scholar]
  48. Wittgenstein, Ludwig
    1953Philosophical investigations. (Anscombe, G. E. M., trans.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/sl.16066.may
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/sl.16066.may
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): activity , categorizing , linguistic unit , referentialism and semiotic resource
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