Cover not available
Part of
Normativity in Language and Linguistics
Edited by Aleksi Mäkilähde, Ville Leppänen and Esa Itkonen
[Studies in Language Companion Series 209] 2019
► pp. 125–150

The normative basis of construal

Normative and cognitive-linguistic accounts of linguistic meaning are often portrayed and conceived as mutually exclusive alternatives. This dichotomy stems from an insufficient understanding of what the phenomenological accessibility of meaning and usage-basedness of language entail. Namely, the theoretical premises of Cognitive Linguistics actually presuppose socially grounded, normative linguistic meanings. The question remains, what kind of entities normative meanings are like. The present chapter makes a case for construal, linguistic perspective-taking usually analyzed as a conceptual phenomenon, as a normative facet of meaning. Analysis presented here suggests that construal emerges as an inherent property of linguistic expressions via conventionalization of intentionality. This analysis does not only expand the area of linguistic normativity but also points to the integral relation between linguistic norms and intentionality.

Keywords: construal, intentionality, intersubjectivity, Cognitive Linguistics, Cognitive Grammar, phenomenology, semantics, pragmatics, norms, normativity
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Cognitive and socio-normative approaches to meaning: Bridging the gap
    • 2.1Usage-based grammar: Social and cognitive facets of language
    • 2.2Cognitive grammar, meaning, and normativity
  • 3.Construal re-interpreted
    • 3.1Construal in Cognitive Grammar
    • 3.2Construal as conventionalized intentionality
  • 4.Alternative construals in context: The role of normative meaning
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 4 December 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.209.05mot
References
Astington, Janet W.
2006 The developmental interdependence of theory of mind and language. In The Roots of Human Sociality. Culture, Cognition, and Human Interaction, Nick Enfield & Stephen C. Levinson (eds), 179–206. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
Banchetti-Robino, Marina
1997 Husserl’s theory of language as calculus ratiocinator. Synthese 112: 303–321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barsalou, Lawrence W.
2010 Ad hoc categories. In The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Language Sciences, Patrick Colm Hogan (ed.), 87–88. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Blomberg, Johan & Zlatev, Jordan
2014 Actual and non-actual motion: Why experientialist semantics needs phenomenology (and vice versa). Phenomenology and Cognitive Science 13: 395–418. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William & Cruse, Alan D.
2004 Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Bruin, Leon & de Haan, Sanneke
2012 Enactivism & social cognition: In search of the whole story. Journal of Cognitive Semiotics 4(1): 225–250.Google Scholar
Drummond, John J.
2012 Intentionality without Representationalism. In The Oxford Handbook of Contemporary Phenomenology, D. Zahavi (ed.), 115–133. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Etelämäki, Marja & Visapää, Laura
2014 Why blend Conversation Analysis with Cognitive Grammar? Pragmatics 24(3): 477–506. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frege, Gottlob
[1892] 1949 On sense and nominatum [‘Über Sinn und Bedeutung’, translated by Herbert Feigl]. In Readings in Philosophical Analysis, Herbert Feigl & Sigfrid Sellars (eds), 85–102. New York NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Harder, Peter
2010 Meaning in Mind and Society. A Functional Contribution to the Social Turn in Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gallagher, Shaun & Hutto, Daniel
2008 Understanding others through primary interaction. In The Shared Mind. Perspectives on Intersubjectivity [Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research 12], Jordan Zlatev, Timothy P. Racine, Chris Sinha & Esa Itkonen (eds), 17–38. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D.
2016 The sociosemiotic commitment. Cognitive Linguistics 27(4): 527–542. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. & Hasan, Ruqaiya
1976 Cohesion in English. Longman: London.Google Scholar
Haukioja, Jussi
2000 Grammaticality, response-dependence and the ontology of linguistic objects. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 23: 3–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Husserl, Edmund
[1900–1901] 2001a Logical Investigations 1. Prolegomena to Pure Logic, Expression and Meaning, The Ideal Unity of the Species and Modern Theories of Abstraction, translated by John Niemeyer Findlay from the second German edition of Logische Untersuchungen. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
[1901] 2001b Logical Investigations 2. On the Theory of Wholes and Parts, The Distinction Between Independent and Non-independent Meanings, On Intentional Experiences and their ‘Contents’, Elements of a Phenomenological Elucidation of Knowledge, translated by John Niemeyer Findlay from the second German edition of Logische Untersuchungen. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
1997 The social ontology of linguistic meaning. In SKY Yearbook, Timo Haukioja, Marja-Liisa Helasvuo & Matti Miestamo (eds), 49–80. Helsinki: The Linguistic Association of Finland.Google Scholar
2003 What is Language? A Study in the Philosophy of Linguistics [Publications in General Linguistics 8]. Turku: University of Turku.Google Scholar
2008a Concerning the role of consciousness in linguistics. Journal of Consciousness studies 15(6): 15–33.Google Scholar
2008b The central role of normativity in language and linguistics. In The Shared Mind. Perspectives on Intersubjectivity [Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research 12], Jordan Zlatev, Timothy P. Racine, Chris Sinha & Esa Itkonen (eds), 279–305. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jaakola, Minna, Töyry, Maija, Helle, Merja & Onikki-Rantajääskö, Tiina
2014 Construing the reader: Multidisciplinary approach to journalistic texts. Discourse & Society 25(5): 640–655. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
1987 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1988 A Usage Based Model. In Topics in Cognitive Linguistics [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 50], Brygida Rudzka Ostyn (ed.), 127–161. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 Cognitive Grammar. A Basic Introduction. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 Interactive cognition: Toward a unified account of structure, processing, and discourse. International Journal of Cognitive Linguistics 3: 95–125.Google Scholar
2016a Toward an integrated view of structure, processing, and discourse. In Studies in Lexicogrammar. Theory and Applications [Human Cognitive Processing 54], Grzegorz Drożdż (ed.), 23–53. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016b Working toward a synthesis. Cognitive Linguistics 27: 465–477. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David
1969 Convention. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Mauri, Caterina
2017 Building and interpreting ad hoc categories: A linguistic analysis. In Formal Models in the Study of Language, Joanna Blochowiak, Cristina Grisot, Stéphanie Durrleman & Christopher Laenzlinger (eds), 297–326. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meltzoff, Andrew N. & Moore, M. Keith
1977 Imitation of facial and manual gestures by human neonates. Science, New Series 198: 75–78.Google Scholar
1994 Imitation, memory, and the representation of persons. Infant Behavior and Development 17: 83–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997 Explaining facial imitation: A theoretical model. Early Development and Parenting 6: 179–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Möttönen, Tapani
2016a Construal in Expression: An Intersubjective Approach to Cognitive Grammar. PhD dissertation, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
2016b Dependence of construal on linguistic and pre-linguistic intersubjectivity. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 39(2): 209–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Putnam, Hilary
1973 Meaning and reference. The Journal of Philosophy 70(19): 699–711. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg
2016 Why Cognitive Linguistics must embrace the social and pragmatic dimensions of language and how it could do so more seriously. Cognitive Linguistics 27(4): 543–557. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stern, Daniel N.
1971 A microanalysis of mother-infant interaction. Journal of American Academy of Child Psychiatry 19: 501–517. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1977 The First Relationship. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
1985 The Interpersonal World of the Infant. A View from Psychoanalysis and Developmental Psychology. New York NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Trevarthen, Colwyn
1979 Communication and cooperation in early infancy: A description of early intersubjectivity. In Before Speech. The Beginning of Human Communication, Margaret Bullowa (ed.), 99–136. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
1980 The foundations of intersubjectivity. In The Social Foundations of Language and Thought, David R. Olson, Jerome Bruner & George A. Miller (eds), 216–242. New York NY: Norton.Google Scholar
Trevarthen, Colwyn & Aitken, Kenneth J.
2001 Infant intersubjectivity: Research, theory, and clinical applications. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 42(1): 3–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verhagen, Arie
2005 Constructions of Intersubjectivity. Discourse, Syntax, and Cognition. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2007 Construal and perspectivisation. In Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, Dirk Geeraerts & Hubert Cuyckens (eds), 48–81. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Wedgwood, Ralph
2007 The Nature of Normativity. Oxford: Clarendon Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zahavi, Dan
1997 Horizontal intentionality and transcendental intersubjectivity. Tijdschrift voor Filosofie 59(2): 304–321.Google Scholar
2001 Beyond empathy: Phenomenological approaches to intersubjectivity. In Between Ourselves. Second-Person Issues in the Study of of Consciousness, E. Thompson (ed.), 151–167. Thorveton: Imprint Academic.Google Scholar
2003a Husserl’s Phenomenology. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
2003b Husserl’s intersubjective transformation of transcendental philosophy. In The New Husserl. A Critical Reader, edited by Donn Welton, 233–254. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Zlatev, Jordan
2005 What’s in a schema? Bodily mimesis and the grounding of language. In From Perception To Meaning. Image Schemas In Cognitive Linguistics, Beate Hampe (ed.), 313–342. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007a Embodiment, language and mimesis. In Body, Language and Mind. Vol 1: Embodiment, Tom Ziemke, Jordan Zlatev & Roslyn M. Frank (eds), 297–337. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2007b Intersubjectivity, mimetic schemas and the emergence of language. Intellectica 46–47(2–3): 123–152.Google Scholar
2008a The dependence of language on consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies 15(6): 34–62.Google Scholar
2008b The co-evolution of intersubjectivity and bodily mimesis. In The Shared Mind. Perspectives on Intersubjectivity [Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research 12], Jordan Zlatev, Timothy P. Racine, Chris Sinha & Esa Itkonen (eds), 215–244. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 Phenomenology and cognitive linguistics. In Handbook of Phenomenology and Cognitive Science, Daniel Schmicking & Shaun Gallagher (eds), 415–446. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zlatev, Jordan.
2016 Turning back to experience in Cognitive Linguistics via phenomenology. Cognitive Linguistics 27(4): 559–572. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zlatev, Jordan & Blomberg, Johan
2016 Embodied intersubjectivity, sedimentation and non-actual motion expressions. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 39(2): 185–208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar