Cover not available
Introduction 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. 167–177
Epilogue

Meaning as referential work

Reflections on the research object of Interactional Semantics

ORCID logo | University of Groningen | University of the WitwatersrandJohannesburg
This epilogue to the Special Issue on Interactional Semantics discusses the contributions to the Special Issue in relation to other research to support three arguments. (i) The choice of Interactional Semantics to take the referential function of language (Jakobson) as its object of research is a welcome choice. (ii) The use of the term ‘meaning’ for this research object is potentially confusing and could be replaced by ‘referential work’. (iii) A research topic which could be included in Interactional Semantics and has not been articulated as such, is the way in which the choice of a referential expression establishes the referent as a particular social reality and is a tacit proposal to the interlocutors to talk about this referent in these terms.
Keywords: interactional semantics, meaning, referential work, interactional linguistics, conversation analysis, linguistic semantics
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Research object of Interactional Semantics
  • 3.The meaning of ‘meaning’
  • 4.Aspects of an Interactional Semantics research program
  • 5.Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 30 April 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/il.24008.koo
References (48)
References
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bilmes, J. (2015). The structure of meaning in talk: Explorations in category analysis. Volume I1: 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
Bühler, K. (1982 [1934]). Sprachtheorie. Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer Verlag.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2012). Some truths and untruths about final intonation in conversational questions. In Jan P. de Ruiter (Ed.) Questions: formal, functional and interactional perspectives (pp. 123–145). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). What does grammar tell us about action? Pragmatics 24(3), 623–647.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. & M. Selting (Eds.) (1996). Prosody in conversation: interactional studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2018). Interactional Linguistics. Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A. (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
Depperman, A. & E. De Stefani (this issue). Editorial: Meaning in Interaction, Interactional Linguistics.
Deppermann, A. & M. Haugh (Eds.) (2022). Action Ascription in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Stefani, E. (2023). Displaying a negative stance by questioning meaning. The Italian format Che cosa vuol dire X? (‘Whatdoes X mean?’). Interactional Linguistics 3 (1/2), 40–66.Google Scholar
Edwards, D. (1991). Categories are for talking: On the cognitive and discursive bases of categorization. Theory & Psychology 1(4), 515–542. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1997). Discourse and Cognition. London: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1998). The Relevant Thing about Her: Social Identity Categories in Use. In C. Antaki & S. Widdicombe (Eds.) Identities in Talk (pp. 15–33). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Edwards, D. & J. Potter. (1992). Discursive Psychology. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. (2022). Language vs. Reality. Why Language is Good for Lawyers and Bad for Scientists. Cambridge: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Prentice Hall: Polity PressGoogle Scholar
Gumperz, J. J. & D. Hymes (Eds.) (1986 [1972]). Directions in Sociolinguistics. The Ethnography of Communication. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Helmer, H. (2023). Ad-hoc-compounds in spoken German: (When) do we need compositionality? Interactional Linguistics.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2007). Intersubjectivity and progressivity in person (and place) reference. In N. J. Enfield & T. Stivers (Eds.) Person Reference in Interaction. Linguistic, cultural and social perspectives (pp.255–280). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Epistemics in Action: Action Formation and Territories of Knowledge, Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Epistemics in Conversation. In: J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.) The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 370–394.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. & T. Stivers. (2013). Conversation Analysis and Sociology. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.) The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 659–673). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1960). Linguistics and Poetics. In T. Sebeok (Ed.) Style in Language (pp.350–377). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Koole, T. & M. N. Gosen. (2024). Scopes of recipiency: An organization of responses to informings. Journal of Pragmatics 2221, 25–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maynard, D. W. (2013). Everyone and No One to Turn to. Intellectual Roots and Contexts for Conversation Analysis. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.) The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp.11–31). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Mazeland, H. & L. Plug. (2010). Doing confirmation with ja/nee hoor. Sequential and prosodic characteristics of a Dutch discourse particle. In D. Barth-Weingarten, E. Reber & M. Selting (Eds.) Prosody in Interaction (pp.161 – 188). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mondada, L. (2011). Understanding as an embodied, situated and sequential achievement in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 431, 542–552. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021). Orchestrating Multi-sensoriality in Tasting Sessions: Sensing Bodies, Normativity, and Language. Symbolic Interaction 44(1), 63–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2023). The semantics of taste in interaction: body, materiality and sensory lexicon in tasting sessions. Interactional Linguistics 3 (1/2), 93–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1986). Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies 9(2–3), 219–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Potter, J. (1996). Representing Reality. Discourse, Rhetoric and Social Construction. London: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raymond, G. & J. Heritage. (2006). The epistemics of social relations: Owning grandchildren. Language in Society 351, 677–705. 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). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
(1992). Lectures on Conversation. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. & E. A. Schegloff. (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
Saeed, J. I. (2015). Semantics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google 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: Free Press.Google Scholar
(2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schutz, A. (1962). The Problem of Social Reality. Springer.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts. An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shor, L. & M. Marmorstein (2023). Self-repeat as a multimodal retraction practice: Evidence from Hebrew conversation. Interactional Linguistics 3 (1/2), 132–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stevanovic, M. & A. Peräkylä. (2012). Deontic Authority in Interaction: The Right to Announce, Propose, and Decide. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(3), 297–321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stokoe, E. (2012). Moving forward with membership categorization analysis: Methods for systematic analysis. Discourse Studies, 14(3), 277–303. DOI logoGoogle Scholar