Article published in:
The Conversation Frame: Forms and functions of fictive interaction
Edited by Esther Pascual and Sergeiy Sandler
[Human Cognitive Processing 55] 2016
► pp. 23–41

Fictive interaction and the nature of linguistic meaning

| Independent scholar, Israel

One may distinguish between three broad conceptions of linguistic meaning. One conception, which I will call “logical”, views meaning as given in reference (for words) and truth (for sentences). Another conception, the “monological” one, seeks meaning in the cognitive capacities of the single mind. A third, “dialogical”, conception attributes meaning to interaction between individuals and personal perspectives. In this chapter I directly contrast how well these three approaches deal with the evidence brought forth by fictive interaction. I examine instances of fictive interaction and argue that intersubjectivity in these instances cannot be reduced to either referential-logical or individual-cognitive semantic notions. It follows that intersubjectivity must belong to the essence of linguistic meaning.

Keywords: dialogism, intersubjectivity, philosophy of language, semantics, theories of meaning
Published online: 01 November 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.55.02san
References
Arens, H
(1984) Aristotle’s theory of language and its tradition: Texts from 500 to 1750. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bach, K
(1994) Conversational impliciture. Mind and Language, 9(2), 124–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005) Context ex machina . In Z. Gendler Szabó (Ed.), Semantics versus pragmatics (pp. 15–44). Oxford: Clarendon Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bakhtin, M.M
(1981) Discourse in the novel. In The dialogic imagination: Four essays (pp. 259–422). Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
(1986) Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Barnes, J
(Ed.) (1984) The complete works of Aristotle: The revised Oxford translation, Vol. 1. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bilmes, J
(1985) “Why that now?” Two kinds of conversational meaning. Discourse Processes, 8, 319–355. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bråten, S
(Ed) (1998) Intersubjective communication and emotion in early ontogeny. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brône, G., & Zima, E
(2014) Towards a dialogic construction grammar: Ad hoc routines and resonance activation. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(3), 457–495. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cappelen, H., & Lepore, E
(2005) Radical and moderate pragmatics: Does meaning determine truth conditions? In Z. Gendler Szabó (Ed.), Semantics versus pragmatics (pp. 45–71). Oxford: Clarendon Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, H.H., & Gerrig, R.J
(1990) Quotation as demonstration. Language, 66(4): 784–805. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cooren, F
(2010) Action and agency in dialogue. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cooren, F., & Sandler, S
(2014) Polyphony, ventriloquism, and constitution: In dialogue with Bakhtin. Communication Theory, 24, 225–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coulson, S., & Oakley, T
(2006) Purple persuasion: Conceptual Blending and deliberative rhetoric. In J. Luchjenbroers (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics: Investigations across languages, fields, and philosophical boundaries (pp. 47–65). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W
(2001) Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009) Toward a social cognitive linguistics. In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in cognitive linguistics (pp. 395–420). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, B., & Sweetser, E
(Eds) (2012) Viewpoint in language: A multimodal perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Brabanter, P
(2005) The impact of autonymy on the lexicon. Word, 56(2), 171–200.Google Scholar
Du Bois, J.W
[2001] (2014) Towards a dialogic syntax. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(3), 359–410. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ducrot, O
(1984) Le dire et le dit. Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G
[1985] (1994) Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(1990) Invisible meaning. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society , 16, 390–404.
(1997) Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M
(1996) Blending as a central process of grammar. In A.E. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language (pp. 113–130). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
(1998) Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 2(1), 133–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002) The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Gallese, V., & Cuccio, V
(2015) The paradigmatic body: Embodied simulation, intersubjectivity and the bodily self. In T. Metzinger & J.M. Windt (Eds.), Open MIND (pp. 1–23). Frankfurt: MIND Group. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gallese, V., & Goldman, A
(1998) Mirror neurons and the simulation theory of mind-reading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2(12), 493–501. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gasparov, B
(2010) Speech, memory, and meaning: Intertextuality in everyday language. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gendler Szabó, Z
(Ed.) (2005) Semantics versus pragmatics. Oxford: Clarendon Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, H.P
(1957) Meaning. Philosophical Review, 66(3), 377–388. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1989) Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hougaard, A
(2004) How’re we doing: An interactional approach to cognitive processes of online meaning construction. PhD dissertation, University of Southern Denmark.Google Scholar
Hopper, P.J
(1998) Emergent grammar. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure (pp. 155–175). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G
(2004) Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G.H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–31). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, D
(1989) Demonstratives. In J. Almog, J. Perry, & H. Wettstein (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan (pp. 481–563). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M
(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1999) Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Sweetser, E
(1994) Foreword. In G. Fauconnier , Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language (pp. ix–xvi). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R.W
(1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar: Volume 1, Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Linell, P
(1998) Approaching dialogue: Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oakley, T., & Coulson, S
(2008) Connecting the dots: Mental spaces and metaphoric language in discourse. In T. Oakley & A. Hougaard (Eds.), Mental spaces in discourse and interaction (pp. 27–50). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oakley, T., & Hougaard, A
(Eds.) (2008) Mental spaces in discourse and interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ochs, E., Schegloff, E.A., & Thompson, S.A
(Eds.) (1996) Interaction and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pang, K.-Y.S
(2005) ‘This is the linguist in me speaking’: Constructions for talking about the self talking. Functions of Language, 12(1), 1–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pascual, E
(2002) Imaginary trialogues: Conceptual blending and fictive interaction in criminal courts. Utrecht: LOT Publications.Google Scholar
(2006) Fictive interaction within the sentence: A communicative type of fictivity in grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(2), 245–267. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014) Fictive interaction: The conversation frame in thought, language, and discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pascual, E., Królak, E., & Janssen, Th. A.J.M
(2013) Direct speech compounds: Evoking socio-cultural scenarios through fictive interaction. Cognitive Linguistics, 24(2), 345–366. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E.H
(1973) Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 328–350. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H
(1992) Lectures on conversation. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Salmon, N
(1991) The pragmatic fallacy. Philosophical Studies, 63, 83–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sandler, S
(2009) The dialogical approach in the philosophy of language. PhD dissertation, Ben Gurion University of the Negev. Google Scholar
Stanley, J
(2000) Context and logical form. Linguistics and Philosophy, 23(4), 391–434. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L
(2000) Toward a cognitive semantics: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Travis, C
(1996) Meaning’s role in truth. Mind, 105(419), 451–466. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verhagen, A
(2005) Constructions of intersubjectivity: Discourse, syntax, and cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Voloshinov, V.N
(1986) Marxism and the philosophy of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Vossler, K
(1932) The spirit of language in civilization. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co.Google Scholar
Wold, A.H
(Ed.) (1992) The dialogical alternative: Towards a theory of language and mind. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.Google Scholar
Zlatev, J., Racine, T.P., Sinha, C., & Itkonen, E
(Eds.) (2008) The shared mind: Perspectives on intersubjectivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Abdel-Raheem, Ahmed
2018. Mental models, (de)compressions, and the actor’s process in body-swap movies. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 5:2 ► pp. 376 ff. Crossref logo
Brody, Mary Jill
2019. Heightened Discourse and Dialogical Syntax in Tojol‐ab'al Conversation. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 29:2 ► pp. 221 ff. Crossref logo
Sandler, Sergeiy & Esther Pascual
2019. In the beginning there was conversation. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) ► pp. 250 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 09 january 2023. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.