Cover not available
Article published In:
Integrating dialogue
Edited by Răzvan Săftoiu and Adrian Pablé
[Language and Dialogue 8:1] 2018
► pp. 139–158

Sign making in dialogue

 | University of Copenhagen (Denmark)
This paper investigates how communicating participants dialogically make and remake signs, and how they rely on the reflexivity of language in order to talk about linguistic experience of relevance to the communication situation they are currently involved in. It addresses the metalinguistic strategies and techniques participants employ in order to deal with linguistic indeterminacy, given that, as presumed by integrational linguistics, contextualization is individual and unique. By way of illustration a transcript of a lively discussion is provided in which the participants demonstrate some of these techniques with the result that they end up effectively contextualizing ‘together apart’.
Keywords: linguistic reflexivity, metalinguistic techniques, linguistic indeterminacy, private signs, integrational linguistics
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Conditions for interpersonal communication
    • 2.1The question of communicational success
  • 3.The crown prince of Denmark is a shoe
  • 4.This is my sign – See for yourself!
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 26 April 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.00009.dun
References (33)
References
Beckner, Clay, Richard Blythe, Joan Bybee, Morten H. Christiansen, William Croft, Nick C. Ellis, John Holland, Jinyun Ke, Diane Larsen-Freeman and Tom Schoenemann. 2009. “Language Is a Complex Adaptive System: Position Paper.” Language Learning 591 (Issue Supplement s1): 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blommaert, Jan. 2005. Discourse: A Critical Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge Universty Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Capone, Alessandro and Jacob L. Mey. (eds). 2016. Interdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society. Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht, London: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cowley, Stephen J. (ed). 2011. Distributed Language. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Damm, Bjarke. 2016. Sproglig betydningsdannelse i teori og praksis [Linguistic meaning-creation in theory and practice], (Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Copenhagen).Google Scholar
Davidson, Donald. 1984. “Communication and Convention.” Synthese 59(1): 3–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1986. “A Nice Derangement of Epitaphs.” In Philosophical Grounds of Rationality: Intentions, Categories, Ends, ed. by Richard E. Grandy and Richard Warner, 157–174. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Duncker, Dorthe. 2012. “‘What’s it called?’ – Conventionalization, glossing practices, and linguistic (in)determinacy.” Language and Communication 32(4): 400–419. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 1975 [2013]. Truth and Method. London, New York: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1957. “Meaning.” The Philosophical Review 66(3): 377–388. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1976. “Was heißt Universalpragmatik?“ In Sprachpragmatik und Philosophie, ed. by Karl-Otto Apel, 174–272. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Harris, Roy. 1981. The language myth. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
. 1993. “Integrational Linguistics.” In Actes du XVe congrès international des linguistes, ed. by André Crochetière, Jean-Claude Boulanger and Conrad Ouellon, 321–323. Sainte-Foy: Presses de l’Université Laval.Google Scholar
. 1996. Signs, Language and Communication. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 1998. Introduction to Integrational Linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
. 2009. Integrationist Notes and Papers 2006–2008. Gamlingay: Bright Pen.Google Scholar
Harris, Roy and Christopher Hutton. 2007. Definition in Theory and Practice. Language, Lexicography and the Law. London, New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Jones, Peter E. 2016. “‘Coordination’ (Herbert H. Clark), ‘integration’ (Roy Harris) and the foundations of communication theory: common ground or competing visions?” Language Sciences 531: 31–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Linell, Per. 1998. Approaching Dialogue: Talk, Interaction and Contexts in Dialogical Perspectives. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Love, Nigel. 1990. “The locus of languages in a redefined linguistics.” In Redefining Linguistics, ed. by Haley G. Davis and Talbot J. Taylor, 53–117. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 1993. “Integrationalism and linguistic theory.” In Actes du XVe congrès international des linguistes, ed. by André Crochetière, Jean-Claude Boulanger and Conrad Ouellon, 330–332. Sainte-Foy: Presses de l’Université Laval.Google Scholar
. 2002. “The Language Myth and Historical Linguistics.” In The language myth in western culture, ed. by Roy Harris, 25–40. Richmond, Surrey: Curzon Press.Google Scholar
Martinet, André. 1984. “Double Articulation as a Criterion of Linguisticity.” Language Sciences 6(1): 31–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Orman, Jon and Adrian Pablé. 2016. “Polylanguaging, integrational linguistics and contemporary sociolinguistic theory: a commentary on Ritzau.” International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 19(5): 592–602. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pablé, Adrian and Christopher Hutton. 2015. Signs, Meaning and Experience: Integrational Approaches to Linguistics and Semiotics. Boston, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter Inc. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2000. “When ‘others’ initiate repair.” Applied Linguistics 21(2): 205–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A., Gail Jefferson and Harvey Sacks. 1977. “The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation.” Language 53(2): 361–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R. 1964. “What is a speech act?” In Philosophy in America, ed. by Max Black, 221–239. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Taylor, Talbot J. 2000. “Language constructing language: the implications of reflexivity for linguistic theory.” Language Sciences 22(4): 483–499. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toolan, Michael. 2017. “Can integrational linguistics be integrated with (critical) discourse analysis?” In Critical Humanist Perspectives. The Integrational Turn in Philosophy of Language and Communication, ed. by Adrian Pablé, 79–95. London, New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weigand, Edda. 2002. “The Language Myth and Linguistics Humanised.” In The language myth in western culture, ed. by Roy Harris, 55–83. Richmond, Surrey: Curzon Press.Google Scholar
. 2010. Dialogue: The Mixed Game. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Read, Catherine
2024. The practice of metaphor in conversation: an ecological integrational approach. Language Sciences 101 ► pp. 101588 ff. DOI logo
Taylor, Talbot J. & Jasper C. van den Herik
2021. Metalinguistic exchanges in child language development. Language Sciences 88 ► pp. 101434 ff. DOI logo
Pablé, Adrian
2019. Integrating the (dialogical) sign: or who's an integrationist?. Language Sciences 75 ► pp. 72 ff. DOI logo
Linell, Per
2018. Dialogism is an integrationism. Language and Dialogue 8:2 ► pp. 306 ff. DOI logo
Weigand, Edda
2018. The theory myth. Language and Dialogue 8:2 ► pp. 289 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 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.