Cover not available
Part of
New Perspectives in Interactional Linguistic Research
Edited by Margret Selting and Dagmar Barth-Weingarten
[Studies in Language and Social Interaction 36] 2024
► pp. 103–130

What do you understand by X?

Semantics in interactional linguistics

| Leibniz-Institute for the German Language | University of Helsinki

This chapter discusses major developments in the field of Interactional Semantics. After locating Interactional Semantics within the study of semantics and introducing major contributions to the field, two approaches for studying semantics in interaction are exemplified: The study of meta-semantic practices (in particular, defining) is concerned with actions by which participants clarify local meanings of expressions they are using; the study of interactional histories is concerned with how the accumulation of common ground over a series of interactions affects both lexical choices and the interpretation of the expressions used. The studies show how indexicality, action-orientation, and recipient-design are basic properties of semantic practice in social interaction.

Keywords: interactional linguistics, interactional semantics, definition, interactional history, meta-semantic practice, semantics, person-reference
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Points of departure for an Interactional Semantics
  • 3.Methodological challenges of studying semantics in Interactional Linguistics
  • 4.Two new approaches to Interactional Semantics
    • 4.1Meta-semantic practices
    • 4.2Interactional histories
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Author queries
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References
Aquinas, Thomas
2006 [1485] Summa Theologica. Blackfriars Edition, 61 Volumes, Latin and English with notes and introductions. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira
1990 Accessing Noun Phrase Antecedents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Aristotle
1933–35 Metaphysics. 2 Volumes. Translated by Hugh Tredennick. Boston MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Auer, Peter
2009 “On-Line Syntax: Thoughts on the Temporality of Spoken Language”. Language Sciences 31, 1: 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Auer, Peter, and Anja Stukenbrock
2022 “Deictic Reference in Space.” In: Pragmatics of Space. Handbooks of Pragmatics, Volume 14, ed. by Andreas Jucker and Heiko Hausendorf, 23–62. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Betz, Emma, and Arnulf Deppermann
2021 “OKAY in responding and claiming understanding.” In OKAY across Languages, ed. by Emma Betz, Arnulf Deppermann, Lorenza Mondada, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen, 56–92. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bilmes, Jack
2011 “Occasioned Semantics: A Systematic Approach to Meaning in Talk.” Human Studies 34, 2: 129–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015 The Structure of Meaning in Talk. Manao, Hawaii: University of Hawaii.Google Scholar
2020 “The Discussion of Abortion in US Political Debates: A Study in Occasioned Semantics.” Discourse Studies 22, 3: 291–318. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brennan, Susan E., and Herbert H. Clark
1996 “Conceptual Pacts and Lexical Choice in Conversation.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 22, 6: 1482–1493.Google Scholar
Bücker, Jörg
2014 “Und mit der Party, wie wollen wir das organisieren? Tying Constructions with the Preposition mit in German Talk-in-Interaction.” In Constructions all the Way Everywhere, ed. by Ronny Boogaart, Timothy Colleman, and Gijsbert Rutten, 285–320. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bühler, Karl
1934 Sprachtheorie. Jena: Fischer.Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn
2002 Thoughts and Utterances. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L.
1994 Discourse, Consciousness, and Time. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H.
1977 “Bridging.” In Thinking, ed. by Philip N. Johnson-Laird, and Peter C. Wason, 411–420. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1996 “Communities, Commonalities, and Communication.” In Rethinking Linguistic Relativity, ed. by John Gumperz, and Stephen Levinson, 324–355. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H., and Deanna Wilkes-Gibbs
1986 “Referring as a Collaborative Process.” Cognition 22: 1–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H., and Edward F. Schaefer
1992 “Contributing to Discourse.” In Arenas of Language Use, ed. by Herbert H. Clark, 144–197. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H., and Susan A. Brennan
1991 “Grounding in Communication”. In Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, ed. by Lauren. B. Resnick, M. John Levine, and Stephanie D. Teasley, 127–149. Washington DC: APA Books. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clift, Rebecca, Chase W. Raymond, and John Heritage
2021 “Reference without Anaphora: On Agency through Grammar.” Linguistics 59, 3: 715–755. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Consten, Manfred, and Maria Averintseva-Klisch
2012 “Tentative Reference Acts? Recognitional Demonstratives as Means of Suggesting Mutual Knowledge – or Overriding a Lack of It.” Research in Language 10, 3: 257–277. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Margret Selting
2018 Interactional Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William and D. Allan Cruse
2004 Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cruse, D. Allan
1986 Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cunningham, Donald J.
2006 “Meaning, sense and reference.” In Concise Encyclopedia of Semantics, ed. by Keith Allan, 526–535. Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf
2002 “Konstitution von Wortbedeutung im Gespräch – Eine Studie am Beispiel des jugendsprachlichen Bewertungsadjektivs assi.” In be-deuten, ed. by Arnulf Deppermann, and Thomas Spranz-Fogasy, 158–184. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
2005 “Conversational Interpretation of Lexical Items and Conversational Contrasting.” In Syntax and Lexis in Conversation, ed. by Auli Hakulinen, and Margret Selting, 289–317. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(ed.) 2011 “Formulation, Generalization, and Abstraction in Interaction.” Human Studies 34, 2.Google Scholar
2016 “La Définition comme Action Multimodale pour des Enjeux Pratiques: Définir pour Instruire à l’Auto-École.” Langages 204, 4: 83–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018 “Changes in Turn-Design over Interactional Histories: The Case of Instructions in Driving School Lessons.” In Time in Embodied Interaction, ed. by Arnulf Deppermann, and Jürgen Streeck, 293–324. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2020 “Interaktionale Semantik.” In Semantiktheorien II, ed. by Jörg Hagemann, and Sven Staffeldt, 235–278. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf, and Axel Schmidt
2021 “How Shared Meanings and Uses Emerge Over an Interactional History: Wabi Sabi in a Series of Theater Rehearsals.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 54, 2: 203–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf, and Elwys De Stefani
2019 “Defining in Talk-in-Interaction: Recipient-Design through Negative Definitional Components.” Journal of Pragmatics 140: 140–155. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf, and Thomas Spranz-Fogasy
(eds.) 2002 be-deuten: Wie Bedeutung im Gespräch entsteht. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger
1999 Demonstratives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DRIVE321
2022 “Biting point.” [URL]
Ehlich, Konrad
1986 Interjektionen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fitzgerald, Richard, and William Housley
(eds.) 2015 Advances in Membership Categorisation Analysis. London: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara A.
1987 Discourse Structure and Anaphora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara A., and Sandra A. Thompson
1990 “A Discourse Explanation of the Grammar of Relative Clauses in English Conversation.” Language 66, 2: 297–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garfinkel, Harold, and Harvey Sacks
1970 “On Formal Structures of Practical Action”. In Theoretical Sociology, ed. by John C. McKinney, and Edward A. Tiryakian, 338–366. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, Harold
1967 Studies in Ethnomethodology. New York: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles
2003 “Pointing as Situated Practice”. In Pointing, ed. by Sotaro Kita, 217–241. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Greco, Luca, and Véronique Traverso
(eds.) 2016 “Définir les Mots dans l’Interaction: Un Essai de Sémantique Interactionnelle.” Langages, 204.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K., Nancy Hedberg, and Ron Zacharski
1993 “Cognitive Status and the Form of Referring Expressions in Discourse.” Language 69: 274–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli, and Margret Selting
(eds.) 2005 Syntax and Lexis in Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hanks, Patrick
2012 “Corpus Evidence and Electronic Lexicography.” In Electronic Lexicography, ed. by Sylviane Granger, and Magali Paquot, 57–82. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harjunpää, Katariina, Arnulf Deppermann, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen
2021 “Constructing the Chekhovian Inner Body in Instructions: An Interactional History of Factuality and Agentivity.” Journal of Pragmatics 171: 158–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haugh, Michael
2008 “The Place of Intention in the Interactional Achievement of Implicature.” In Intention, Common Ground and the Egocentric Speaker-Hearer, ed. by Istvan Kecskes, and Jacob Mey, 45–86. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hausendorf, Heiko
2000 Zugehörigkeit durch Sprache. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Helmer, Henrike, and Jörg Zinken
2019 “Das heißt (“That Means“) for Formulations and du meinst (“You Mean“) for Repair? Interpretations of Prior Speakers’ Turns in German.” In: Research on Language and Social Interaction 52, 2: 159–176. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Helmer, Henrike
2020 “How Do Speakers Define the Meaning of Expressions? The Case of German x heißt y (“x means y“).” Discourse Processes 57, 3: 278–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John
1984 Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Oxford: Polity.Google Scholar
2007 “Intersubjectivity and Progressivity in Person (and Place) Reference.” In Person Reference in Interaction, ed. by Tanya Stivers, and Nick J. Enfield, 255–280. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hester, Stephen, and Peter Eglin
(eds.) 1997 Culture in Action. Washington DC: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Jayyusi, Leena
1984 Categorization and the Moral Order. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Kääntä, Leila, Gabriele Kasper, and Arja Piirainen-Marsh
2018 “Explaining Hooke’s Law: Definitional Practices in a CLIL Physics Classroom.” Applied Linguistics 39, 5: 694–717.Google Scholar
Kendon, Adam
2004 Gesture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kitzinger, Celia, and Jenny Mandelbaum
2013 “Word Selection and Social Identities in Talk.” Communication Monographs 80, 2: 176–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kitzinger, Celia, Rebecca Shaw, and Merran Toerien
2012 “Referring to persons without using a full-form reference: Locally initial indexicals in action.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 45, 2: 116–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, William, and Joshua Waletsky
1967 “Narrative Analysis.” In Essays on the Verbal and Visual Arts, ed. by J. Helm, 12–44. Washington DC: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George
1987 Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. Chicago IL: Chicago UP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Steven
1983 Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Linell, Per, and Jan Lindström
2016 “Partial Intersubjectivity and Sufficient Understandings for Current Practical Purposes: On a Specialized Practice in Swedish Conversation.” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 39, 2: 113–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, John
1977 Semantics. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marrese, Olivia H., Chase W. Raymond, Barbara A. Fox, Cecilia E. Ford, and Megan Pielke
2021 “The Grammar of Obviousness: The Palm-Up Gesture in Argument Sequences.” Frontiers in Communication 6, Art. 663067. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maynard, Douglas W.
2011 “On ‘Interactional Semantics’ and Problems of Meaning.” Human Studies 34, 2: 199–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza
2015 “Multimodal Completions.” In Temporality in Interaction, ed. by Arnulf Deppermann, and Susanne Günthner, 267–308. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018 “Multiple Temporalities of Language and Body in Interaction: Challenges for Transcribing Multimodality.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 51, 1, 85–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Müller, Cornelia
2004 “Forms and Uses of the Palm Up Open Hand: A case of a gesture family?” In The Semantics and Pragmatics of Everyday Gestures, ed. by Cornelia Müller, and Roland Posner, 233–256. Berlin: Weidler.Google Scholar
Norén, Karen, and Linell, Per
2005 “Meaning Potentials and the Interaction between Lexis and Contexts.” Pragmatics 17, 3: 387–416.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anta, and Barbara J. Fehr
1997 “Conversation Analysis: An Approach to the Study of Social Action as Sense Making Practices.” In Discourse as Social Interaction, ed. by Teun A. van Dijk, 64–91. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Putnam, Hilary
1975 The Meaning of “Meaning”. Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robinson, Richard
1950 The Definition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey
1972 “On the Analyzability of Stories by Children”. In Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication, ed. by John J. Gumperz, and Dell Hymes, 325–345. New York: Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
1992 Lectures on Conversation. Volume II. Edited by Gail Jefferson. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, and Emanuel A. Schegloff
1979 “Two Preferences in the Organization of Reference to Persons in Conversation and Their Interaction.” In Everyday Language, ed. by George Psathas, 15–21. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
Saeed, John E.
2022 Semantics. 5th ed. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Sambre, Paul
2005 Emergence et Conceptualisation de la Définition en Langue Naturelle. Leuven: Katholieke Universiteit.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A.
1972 “Notes on a Conversational Practice: Formulating Place.” In Studies in Social Interaction, ed. by David Sudnow, 75–119. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
1996 “Some Practices for Referring to Persons in Talk-in-Interaction: A Partial Sketch of a Systematics.” In Studies in Anaphora, ed. by Barbara A. Fox, 437–485. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selting, Margret
1996 “Prosody as an activity-type distinctive cue in conversation: the case of so-called ‘astonished’ questions in repair initiation.” In Prosody in Conversation, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Margret Selting, 231–270. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya
2007 “Alternative recognitionals in person reference.” In Person Reference in Interaction, ed. by Nick J. Enfield, and Tanya Stivers, 73–96. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, and Makoto Hayashi
2010 “Transformative answers: one way to resist a question’s constraints.” Language in Society 39, 1: 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, and Federico Rossano
2010 “Mobilizing Response.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 43, 1: 3–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, and Nick Enfield
(eds.) 2007 Person Reference in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Streeck, Jürgen
2009 Gesturecraft. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stukenbrock, Anja
2011 “Überlegungen zu einem multimodalen Verständnis der gesprochenen Sprache am Beispiel deiktischer Verwendungsweisen des Ausdrucks ‚so’.” In Beschreibungen für gesprochenes Deutsch auf dem Prüfstand, ed. by Norbert Dittmar, and Niehls Bahlo, 165–193. Frankfurt/Main: Lang.Google Scholar
2015 Deixis in der Face-to-Face Interaktion. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Svennevig, Jan
2018 “Decomposing Turns to Enhance Understanding by L2 Speakers.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 51, 4: 398–416. DOI logoGoogle Scholar