Cover not available
Part of
Language, Culture and Identity – Signs of Life
Edited by Vera da Silva Sinha, Ana Moreno-Núñez and Zhen Tian
[Cognitive Linguistic Studies in Cultural Contexts 13] 2020
► pp. 157–179

Chapter 8
Construing the self in discourse

A socio-cognitive approach

| Monash University
This chapter explores the topic of signs of life through examining metaphorical representations of the inner self. The frequent use of inner self metaphors by Chinese speakers in talk-in-interaction suggests a close relationship between metaphorical conceptualisation and the communication of identity. The analytical framework departs from the performativity of self-representation. Speakers construe self-reflection by indexing more than one aspect of the self in front of other interlocutors. Conceptually, the split of the subject and the self anchors self-reflective performances. The data is drawn from focus group discussions among Mainland-born Chinese immigrants in Australia. The present chapter uses one focus group as a case study to illustrate the proposed socio-cognitive approach to study inner self metaphors. This approach incorporates elements from sociolinguistics and cognitive linguistics. It is argued that such an approach has the merit of capturing the socio-culturally embedded meanings of inner self metaphors in discursive acts.
Keywords: performance, inner self, metaphorical conceptualisation, socio-cultural meanings
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Towards a socio-cognitive discourse approach
  • Methodology
  • Analysis
    • The physical object self
    • The locational self
    • The embodied self
  • Discussion
  • Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 30 April 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/clscc.13.08lu
References (47)
References
Bamberg, Michael G. W. 1997. “Positioning between structure and performance.” Journal of Narrative and Life History 7 (1–4): 335–342. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011. “Who am i? Narration and its contribution to self and identity.” Theory and Psychology 21 (1): 3–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauman, Richard. 1993. “Disclaimers of performance.” In Responsibility and evidence in oral discourse, Jane H. Hills and Judith T. Irvine (eds), 182–196. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Biq, Yung-O. 1991. “The multiple uses of the second person singular pronoun ni in conversational Mandarin.” Journal of Pragmatics 16 (4): 307–321.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brès, Jacques. 1996. "Aspects de l’interaction rapportée dans le récit oral conversationnel." Cahiers Du Français Contemporain 3: 45–60.Google Scholar
Bucholtz, Mary and Hall, Kira. 2005. “Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach.” Discourse Studies 7 (4/5): 585–614. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Budwig, Nancy. 2000. “Language and the construction of self.” In Communication: An arena of development, Nancy Budwig, Ina Č. Užgiris and James V. Wertsch (eds), 195–214. New York: Ablex.Google Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara. 2008. “Personal pronouns, blending, and narrative viewpoint.” In Language in the context of use: Discourse and cognitive approaches to language, Andrea Tyler, Yiyoung Kim and Mari Takada (eds), 167–183. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Davies, Bronwyn and Harré, Rom. 1990. "Positioning: The discursive production of selves." Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 20(1): 43–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1991. “Contradiction in lived and told narratives.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 25 (1–4): 1–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Fina, Anna. 2013. “Discourse and identity.” In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, Carol A. Chapelle (ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
De Fina, Anna, Schiffrin, Deborah and Bamberg, Michael. 2006. Discourse and identity. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles and Turner, Mark. 2002. The way we think conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1983. “How to know whether you’re coming or going.” In Essays on deixis, Gisa Rauh (ed.), 219–227. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Gergen, Kenneth J. 2011. “The Social Construction of Self.” In The Oxford handbook of the self, Shaun Gallagher (ed.), 633–653. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Giddens, Anthony. 1984. The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1959. The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Anchor Books for Doubleday.Google Scholar
. 1974. Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
. 1981. Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Grundy, Peter and Jiang, Yan. 2001. “Ideological ground and relevant interpretation in a cognitive semantics.” In Language and Ideology: theoretical cognitive approaches, René Dirven, Bruce Hawkins and Esra Sandikcioglu (eds), 107–140. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hanks, William F. 1992. “The indexical ground of deictic reference.” In Rethinking Context, Alessandro Duranti and Charles Goodwin (eds), 43–77. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2009. “Fieldwork on deixis.” Journal of Pragmatics 41 (1): 10–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haviland, John B. 1996. “Projection, transpositions, and relativity.” In Rethinking linguistic relativity, John J. Gumperz and Stephen C. Levinson (eds), 271–323. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hill, Jane H. and Irvine, Judith T. 1993. Responsibility and evidence in oral discourse. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray and Landau, Barbara. 1991. “Spatial language and spatial cognition.” In Bridges between psychology and linguistics: A Swarthmore festschrift for Lila Gleitman, Donna J. Napoli and Judy A. Kegl (eds), 145–169. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Kitagawa, Chisato and Lehrer, Adrienne. 1990. “Impersonal uses of personal pronouns.” Journal of Pragmatics 14 (5): 739–759. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán. 2005. Metaphor in culture: universality and variation. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1996. “Sorry, I’m not myself today: The metaphor system for conceptualizing the self.” In Spaces, worlds, and grammar, Gilles Fauconnier and Eve Sweetser (eds), 91–123. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George and Johnson, Mark. 1999. Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic books.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2001. “Viewing and experiential reporting in cognitive grammar.” In Linguagem e Cognição, Augusto S. da Silva (ed.), 19–49. Braga: Faculdade de Filosofia de Braga.Google Scholar
2007. “Constructing the meanings of personal pronouns.” In Aspects of meaning construction, Günter Radden, Klaus-Michael Köpcke, Thomas Berg and Peter Siemund (eds), 171–187. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1988. “Putting linguistics on a proper footing: Explorations in Goffman’s participation framework.” In Erving Goffman: Exploring the interaction order, Paul Drew and Anthony J. Wootton (eds), 161–227. Oxford: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Li, Juan. 2010. “Verticality, Horizontality, and States of the Self: Cognitive Metaphors for the ‘Spatial Self’ in Chinese Autobiographical Writings.” Metaphor and Symbol 26 (1): 68–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lu, Yanying. 2016. “The Great Mother’ A conceptual analysis of mother and infant metaphors in Daodejing.” International Journal of Language and Culture 3 (1): 34–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. “Self” in Language, Culture, and Cognition. Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manning, Paul and Gershon, Ilana. 2013. “Animating interaction.” HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 3 (3): 107–37.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ochs, Elinor. 1992. “Indexing gender.” In Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon, Alessandro Duranti and Charles Goodwin (eds), 335–358. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Potter, Jonathan and Wetherell, Margeret. 1987. Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond Attitudes and Behaviour. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 2003. “Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life.” Language & Communication 3: 193–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. 2012. “Introduction: viewpoint and perspective in language and gesture, from the Ground down”. In Viewpoint in language: a multimodal perspective, Barbara Dancygier and Eve Sweetser (eds), 1–22. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1978. “Figure and ground in complex sentences.” In Universals of Human Language: Syntax, Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), 625–649. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
. 1983. “How language structures space.” In Spatial orientation: Theory, research and application, Herbert L. Pick and Linda P. Acredolo (eds), 225–282. Boston: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yu, Ning. 2009. The Chinese heart in a cognitive perspective culture, body, and language. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhou, Minglang. 2002. “Between us and them in Chinese: Use of Lai (come) and qu (go) in the construction of social identities.” In Us and others: Social identities across languages, discourses and cultures, Anna Duszak (ed.), 51–67. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhou, Minglang and Fu, Ping. 1996. “Physical space and social space: how to come and go in Chinese.” In Proceedings of the Second International Colloquium on Deixis: Time, Space and Identity, Laurent Romary (ed.), 97–114. Nancy: The CRIN-CNRS & INRIA Lorraine.Google Scholar