Cover not available
Editorial published In:
Meaning in Interaction: Studies in memory of Jack Bilmes
Edited by Arnulf Deppermann and Elwys De Stefani
[Interactional Linguistics 3:1/2] 2023
► pp. 1–12
Editorial

Meaning in interaction

 | IDS Mannheim and Helsinki University
 | Heidelberg University
This editorial to the Special Issue on “Meaning in Interaction” introduces to the approach of Interactional Semantics, which has been developed over the last years within the framework of Interactional Linguistics. It discusses how “meaning” is understood and approached in this framework and lays out that Interactional Semantics is interested in how participants clarify and negotiate the meanings of the expressions that they are using in social interaction. Commonalities and differences of this approach with other approaches to meaning are flagged, and the intellectual origins and precursors of Interactional Semantics are introduced. The contributions to the Special Issue are located in the larger field of research.
Keywords: Interactional Linguistics, Interactional Semantics, meaning, semantics
Published online: 18 March 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/il.24004.dep
References (80)
References
Aitchison, J. (2012). Words in the mind: An introduction to the mental lexicon. 4th ed. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, D., & Szczepek Reed, B. (Eds.) (2014). Prosody and phonetics in interaction. Mannheim: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.Google Scholar
Bilmes, J. (2009). Taxonomies are for talking: Reanalyzing a Sacks classic. Journal of Pragmatics, 41 (8), 1600–1610. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Occasioned semantics: A systematic approach to meaning in talk. Human Studies, 34 (2), 155–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). The structure of meaning in talk: Explorations in category analysis. Volume I: Co-categorization, contrast, and hierarchy. [URL]
(2020). The discussion of abortion in US political debates: A study in occasioned semantics. Discourse Studies, 22 (3), 291–318. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2022). Delineating categories in verbal interaction. Discourse Studies, OnlineFirst. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coulter, J. (1996). Human practices and the observability of the ‘macrosocial’. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 25 (5), 337–345. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M. (Eds.) (1996). Prosody in conversation: Interactional studies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(Eds.) (2018). Interactional linguistics: Studying language in social interaction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cruse, D. A. (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Debois, T., & De Stefani, E. (2022). Interactional onomastics: Place names as malleable resources. In A. H. Jucker & H. Hausendorf (Eds.), Pragmatics of space (pp. 125–152). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, A. (2005). Conversational interpretation of lexical items and conversational contrasting. In A. Hakulinen, & M. Selting (Eds.), Syntax and lexis in conversation (pp. 289–317). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). Grammatik und Semantik aus gesprächsanalytischer Sicht. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2011). The study of formulations as a key to an interactional semantics. Human Studies, 34 (2), 115–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Retrospection and understanding in interaction. In A. Deppermann & S. Günthner (Eds.), Temporality in interaction (pp. 57–94), Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). La définition comme action multimodale pour des enjeux pratiques: définir pour instruire à l’auto-école. Langages, 4 (204), 83–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). „s hat sicherlich auch öh (0.4) kultuRELle (0.8) öh n kultuRELlen hintergrund“. Kultur in der alltäglichen Interaktion. In J. Schröter, S. Tienken, Y. Ilg, J. Scharloth, & N. Bubenhofer (Eds.), Linguistische Kulturanalyse (pp. 29–50). Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020). Interaktionale Semantik. In J. Hagemann, & S. Staffeldt (Eds.), Semantiktheorien II: Analysen von Wort- und Satzbedeutungen im Vergleich (pp. 235–278). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
(2023). Meta-semantic practices in social interaction: Definitions and specifications provided in response to Was heißt X (‘What does X mean’). Interactional Linguistics 3 (1/2), 13–39.Google Scholar
(2024). “What do you understand by X”: semantics in Interactional Linguistics. In M. Selting & D. Barth-Weingarten (Eds.), New perspectives in interactional linguistic research. (pp. 103–130). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, A., & De Stefani, E. (2019). Defining in talk-in-interaction: Recipient-design through negative definitional components. Journal of Pragmatics, 140 1, 140–155. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, A., & Spranz-Fogasy, T. (Eds.) (2002). Be-deuten: Wie Bedeutung im Gespräch entsteht. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
De Stefani, E. (2005). Les demandes de définition en français parlé. Aspects grammaticaux et interactionnels. Travaux Neuchâtelois de Linguistique, 41 1, 147–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). Ordering and serving coffee in an Italian café: How customers obtain ‘their’ coffee. In D. Day & J. Wagner (Eds.), Objects, bodies and work practice (pp. 113–139). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020). Nel senso (che) in Italian conversation: Turn-taking, turn-maintaining and turn-yielding. In Y. Maschler, S. Pekarek Doehler, J. Lindström, & L. Keevallik (Eds.), Emergent syntax for conversation: Clausal patterns and the organization of action (pp. 25–54). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2023). Displaying a negative stance by questioning meaning: The Italian format Che cosa vuol dire X? (‘What does X mean?’). Interactional Linguistics 3 (1/2), 40–66.Google Scholar
De Stefani, E., & Sambre, P. (2016). L’exhibition et la négociation du savoir dans les pratiques définitoires: l’interaction autour du syndrome de fatigue chronique dans un groupe d’entraide. Langages, 4 (204), 27–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dingemanse, M., Blythe, J., & Dirksmeyer, T. (2014). Formats for other-initiation of repair across languages. Studies in Language 38 (1), 5–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Enfield, N., & Stivers, T. (Eds.) (2007). Person reference in interaction: Linguistic, cultural and social perspectives. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fasel Lauzon, V. (2014). Comprendre et apprendre dans l’interaction. Les séquences d’explication en classe de français langue seconde. Bern: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frake, C. O. (1962). The ethnographic study of cognitive systems. In W. C. Sturtevant (Ed.), Anthropology and human behavior (pp. 72–85). Washington, DC: Anthropological Society of Washington.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. & Sacks, H. (1970). On formal structures in practical action. In J. C. McKinney, & E. A. Tiryakian (Eds.), Theoretical sociology: Perspectives and developments (pp. 338–366). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (2021). Cognitive semantics. In W. Xu & J. R. Taylor (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 19–29). New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glynn, D., & Fisher, K. (Eds.) (2010). Quantitative methods in cognitive semantics: Corpus-driven approaches. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodenough, W. H. (1965). Yankee kinship terminology: A problem in componential analysis. Part 2: Formal semantic analysis. American Anthropologist, 67 (5), New Series, 259–287. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C. (1997). The blackness of black: Color categories as situated practice. In L. B. Resnick, R. Säljö, C. Pontecorvo & B. Burge (Eds.), Discourse, tools and reasoning: Essays on situated cognition (pp. 111–140). Berlin/Heidelberg/New York: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greco, L., & Traverso, V. (Eds.) (2016). Définir les mots dans l’interaction: un essai de sémantique interactionnelle. Special Issue of Langages, 4 (204).Google Scholar
Günthner, S. (2015). Grammatische Konstruktionen im Kontext sequenzieller Praktiken – was heißt x-Konstruktionen im gesprochenen Deutsch. In J. Bücker, S. Günthner, & W. Imo (Eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik V: Konstruktionen im Spannungsfeld von sequenziellen Mustern, kommunikativen Gattungen und Textsorten (pp. 187–218). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, A., & Selting, M. (Eds.) (2005). Syntax and lexis in conversation: Studies on the use of linguistic resources in talk-in-interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haugh, Michael. (2008). The place of intention in the interactional achievement of implicature. In I. Kecskes, & J. Mey (Eds.), Intention, common ground and the egocentric speaker-hearer (pp. 45–85). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hauser, E. (2011). Generalization: A practice of situated categorization in talk. Human Studies, 34 (2), 183–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Helmer, H. (2020). Das heißt (‘that means’) for formulation and du meinst (‘you mean’) for repair? Interpretations of prior speakers’ turns in German. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 52 (2), 159–176. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2023). Ad-hoc-compounds in spoken German: (When) do we need compositionality? Interactional Linguistics 3 (1/2), 67–92.Google Scholar
Heritage, J., & Watson, D. R. (1979). Formulations as conversational objects. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 123–162). New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
Hester, S., & Eglin, P. (Eds.) (1997). Culture in action: Studies in membership categorization analysis. Washington DC: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Hinnenkamp, V. (1998). Missverständnisse in Gesprächen. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jayyusi, L. (1984). Categorization and the moral order. Boston: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kääntä, L., Kasper, G., & Piirainen-Marsh, A. (2016). Explaining Hooke’s Law: Definitional Practices in a CLIL physics classroom. Applied Linguistics, 39 1, 694–717. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, Y., & Mlynář, J. (2023). “For example” formulations and the interactional work of exemplification. Human Studies, 46 (3), 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lerner, G. H. (1991). On the syntax of sentences-in-progress. Language in Society, 20 (3), 441–458. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Liberman, K. (2012). Semantic drift in conversation. Human Studies, 35 (2), 263–277. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Linell, P., & Lindström, J. (2016). Partial intersubjectivity and sufficient understandings for current practical purposes: On a specialized practice in Swedish conversation. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 39 (2), 113–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lüdi, G. (1991). Construire ensemble les mots pour le dire. A propos de l’origine discursive des connaissances lexicales. In E. Gülich et al. (Eds.), Linguistische Interaktionsanalysen. Beiträge zum 20. Romanistentag 1987 (pp. 193–224). Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malinowski, B. (1923). The problem of meaning in primitive languages. In C. K. Ogden, & I. A. Richards (Eds.), The meaning of meaning (pp. 296–336). London: K. Paul, Trend, Trubner.Google Scholar
Maynard, D. (2011). On “interactional semantics” and problems of meaning. Human Studies, 34 (2), 199–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mondada, L. (2023). The semantics of taste in interaction: Body, materiality and sensory lexicon in tasting sessions. Interactional Lingistics 3 (1/2), 93–131.Google Scholar
Murphy, M. L. (2010). Lexical meaning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norén, K., & Linell, P. (2007). Meaning potentials and the interaction between lexis and contexts: An empirical substantiation. Pragmatics, 17 (3), 387–416.Google Scholar
Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A., & Thompson, S. A. (Eds.) (1996). Interaction and grammar. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, A. & Fehr, B. J. (1997). Conversation analysis: An approach to the study of social action as sense making practices. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as social interaction (pp. 64–91). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Raymond, C. W. (2022). Situation and sequentiality: Notes on the study of morphology in interaction. Interactional Linguistics, 2 (1), 1–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H. (1972). On the analyzability of stories by children. In J. J. Gumperz, & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication (pp. 325–345). New York: Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
(1992). Lectures on conversation. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., & Schegloff, E. A. (1979). Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 15–21). New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50 (4), 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1972). Notes on a conversational practice: Formulating place. In D. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in social interaction (pp. 75–119). New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
(1992). Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology, 97 (5), 1295–1345. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1996). Some practices for referring to persons in talk-in-interaction: A partial sketch of a systematics. In B. A. Fox (Ed.), Studies in anaphora (pp. 437–485). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1997). Whose text? Whose context? Discourse & Society, 8 (2), 165–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmale, G. (2016). La définition-en-interaction: la définition du sens comme accomplissement interactif. Langages, 4 (204), 67–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schütz, A. (1932). Der sinnhafte Aufbau der sozialen Welt: Eine Einleitung in die verstehende Soziologie. Wien: Julius Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selting, M. (1987). Verständigungsprobleme: Eine empirische Analyse am Beispiel der Bürger-Verwaltungs-Kommunikation. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selting, M., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (Eds.) (2001). Studies in interactional linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shor, L., & Marmorstein, M. (2023). Self-repeat as a multimodal retraction practice: Evidence from Hebrew conversation. Interactional Linguistics 3 (1/2), 132–166.Google Scholar
Sidnell, J. (2014). The architecture of intersubjectivity revisited. In N. J. Enfield, P. Kockelman, & J. Sidnell (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of Linguistic Anthropology (364–399). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traverso, V. & Ravazzolo, E. (2016). Définitions ostensives co-construites: le cas de la visite guidée. Langages, 4 (204), 43–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weingarten, R. (1988). Verständigungsprobleme im Grundschulunterricht. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Deppermann, Arnulf
2024. What do you understand by X?. In New Perspectives in Interactional Linguistic Research [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 36], ► pp. 103 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 september 2024. 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.