Cover not available
Part of
The Expression of Inequality in Interaction: Power, dominance, and status
Edited by Hanna Pishwa and Rainer Schulze
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 248] 2014
► pp. 17–48

Representing inequality in language

Words as social categorizers of experience

| Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz University of Hanover
Using large, computerized corpora, this study aims to provide lexico-grammatical evidence for patterns or constructions in language pertaining to domains such as “power”, “dominance”, “inequality” or “status”. The study will specifically focus on the verbal uses of brook and countenance, lemmas that are pivotal to the domains in question and whose semantic and pragmatic meanings will be associated with discourses of inequality and supremacy, subordination and authorization. The verbal lemmas will turn out less as markers of energy transfer (as might be expected from the prototypical constructional meaning of transitive clauses in which they ordinarily occur) than as markers of perceived social implications, with a clear focus on the constructing and representational nature of their uses. In addition to offering a contribution to language-dependent “dominance”, “inequality”, “power”, “status” research, this paper will also demonstrate the indispensable use of corpus-linguistic methods within a predominantly functional framework (drawing its main inspirations from current research in neo-Firthian linguistics, Frame Semantics and Cognitive Linguistics in particular).
Published online: 12 June 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.248.02sch
References (41)
References
Atkins, Sue, Charles J. Fillmore, and Christopher R. Johnson. 2003. “Lexicographic Relevance: Selecting Information from Corpus Evidence.” International Journal of Lexicography16(3): 251–280. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bartlett, Tom. 2012. Analysing Power in Language. A Practical Guide. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Becker, Howard S. (ed). 1964. The Other Side: Perspectives on Deviance. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Cameron, Deborah. 2001. Working with Spoken Discourse. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Cole, David R., and Linda J. Graham (eds). 2012. The Power in/of Language. Oxford: 
Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clear, Jeremy. 1993. “From Firth Principles: Computational Tools for the Study of Collocation.” In Text and Technology. In Honour of John Sinclair, ed. by Mona Baker, Gill Francis, and Elena Tognini-Bonelli, 271–292. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Conley, John M., and William M. O’Barr. 1998. Just Words. Law, Language, and Power. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Coupland, Nikolas. 2001. “Age in Social and Sociolinguistic Theory.” In Sociolinguistics and Social Theory, ed. by Nikolas Coupland, Srikant Sarangi and Chistopher N. Candlin, 185–211. Harlow, UK: Longman.Google Scholar
Facchinetti, Roberta (ed). 2012. English Dictionaries as Cultural Mines. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman, and Ruth Wodak. 1997. “Critical Discourse Analysis.” In Discourse as Social Interaction. Discourse Studies, vol. 2, ed. by Teun van Dijk, 258–284. Thousand Oaks, CA, London and New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
Fiedler, Klaus, and Peter Freytag. 2009. “Attribution Theories Wired into Linguistic Categories.” In Language and Social Cognition. Expression of the Social Mind, ed. by Hanna Pishwa, 349–369. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1982. “Frame Semantics.” In Linguistics in the Morning Calm, ed. by The Linguistic Society of Korea, 111–137. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing.Google Scholar
Firth, John Rupert. 1957. “The Technique of Semantics.” In Papers in Linguistics 1934–1951, John Rupert Firth, 7–33. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 1966. Les mots et les choses. Une archéologie des sciences humaines. Paris: 
Gallimard.Google Scholar
. 1969. L’archéologie du savoir. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
. 1971. L’ordre du discours. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1961. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2011. “Meaning Arises from Words, Context, and Phrasal Constructions.” Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik59(4): 317–329. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grillo, Eric (ed). 2005. Power without Domination. Dialogism and the Empowering Property of Communication. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gumperz, John J. 1986. “Interactional Sociolinguistics in the Study of Schooling.” In The Social Construction of Literacy, ed. by Jenny Cook-Gumperz, 45–68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 2nd ed.London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Jaworski, Adam, and Nikolas Coupland. 2006. “Introduction. Perspectives on Discourse Analysis.” In The Discourse Reader, ed. by Adam Jaworski, and Nikolas Coupland, 1–37. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1966. The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Lindquist, Hans. 2009. Corpus Linguistics and the Description of English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Louw, Bill. 1993. “Irony in the Text or Insincerity in the Writer? – The Diagnostic Potential of Semantic Prosodies.” In Text and Technology. In Honour of John Sinclair, ed. by Mona Baker, Gill Francis, and Elena Tognini-Bonelli, 157–176. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Marín-Arrese, Juana I. and Dirk Geeraerts. 2007. “Interview: Cognitive Sociolinguistics and the Sociology of Cognitive Linguistics.” Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics5: 289–305. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mead, George Herbert. 1934. Mind, Self and Society: From the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Orpin, Debbie. 2005. “Corpus Linguistics and Critical Discourse Analysis.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics10(1): 37–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poynton, Cate. 1989. Language and Gender: Making the Difference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Reddy, Michael J. 1979. “The Conduit Metaphor – A Case of Frame Conflict in Our Language about Language.” In Metaphor and Thought, ed. by A. Ortony, 284–324. Cambridge: 
Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Simpson, Paul, and Andrea Mayr. 2010. Language and Power: A Resourcebook for Students. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sinclair, John. 1996a. “The Empty Lexicon.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics1(1): 99–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1996b. “The Search for Units of Meaning.” TextusIX: 75–106.Google Scholar
Stewart, Dominic. 2010. Semantic Prosody: A Critical Evaluation. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stubbs, Michael. 2001. Words and Phrases. Corpus Studies of Lexical Semantics. Oxford and Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1988. “Force Dynamics in Language and Cognition.” Cognitive Science12: 49–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Teubert, Wolfgang. 2005. “My Version of Corpus Linguistics.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics10 (1): 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tognini-Bonelli, Elena. 2001. Corpus Linguistics at Work. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, Raymond. 1976. Keywords. A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. London: Fontana.Google Scholar
Wilson, Steven R. 2002. Seeking and Resisting Compliance: Why People Say What They Do When Trying to Influence Others. Thousand Oaks, CA, London and New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
Wodak, Ruth. 2005. “Sprache und Politik – Sprache in der Politik – Sprache/Sprechen über (Sprache in/über) Politik: Möglichkeiten und Grenzen diskursanalytischer Vorgehensweisen.” Aptum2: 135–153.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Schulze, Rainer
2015. The Significance of ‘the Social’ in Contemporary Linguistics. In The Exercise of Power in Communication, ► pp. 17 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 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.