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 (58)
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