Meaning as a nonlinear effect: The birth of cool

Jan Blommaert
Tilburg University & Ghent University
Abstract

Saussurean and Chomskyan “conduit” views of meaning in communication, dominant in much of expert and lay linguistic semantics, presuppose a simple, closed and linear system in which outcomes can be predicted and explained in terms of finite sets of rules. Summarizing critical traditions of scholarship, notably those driven by Bateson’s view of systems infused with more recent linguistic-anthropological insights into the ideologically mediated and indexically organized “total linguistic fact”, this paper argues for a view of meaning in terms of complex open systems in which complex units of analysis invite more precise distinctions within “meaning”. Using online viral memes and the metapragmatic qualifier of “cool” as cases in point, we see that the meaning of such memes is better described as a range of “effects”, most of them nonlinear and not predictable on the basis of the features of the sign itself. Such effects suggest a revised and broader notion of nonlinear “perlocution”.

Keywords:
Quick links
A browser-friendly version of this article is not yet available. View PDF
Agha, A
2007Language and Social Relations. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Austin, J.L
1989[1962]How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Bateson, G
1936Naven: A Survey of the Problems Suggested by a Composite Picture of the Culture of a New Guinea Tribe Drawn From Three Points of View. London: CUP.Google Scholar
Bauman, R. & Briggs, C
2003Voices of Modernity. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Billings, S
2013Language, Globalization and the Making of a Tanzanian Beauty Queen. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blommaert, J
2005Discourse: A Critical Introduction. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010The Sociolinguistics of Globalization. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012Lookalike language. English Today 58(2): 60–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013Ethnography, Superdiversity and Linguistic Landscapes: Chronicles of Complexity. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014aState Ideology and Language in Tanzania, 2nd and rev. edn. Edinburgh: EUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014bFrom mobility to complexity in sociolinguistic theory and method. Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies, paper 103. https://​www​.tilburguniversity​.edu​/upload​/5ff19e97​-9abc​-45d0​-8773​-d2d8b0a9b0f8​_TPCS​_103​_Blommaert​.pdfGoogle Scholar
Cicourel, A
[1967]2013The Social Organization of Juvenile Justice. New Brunswick NJ: Transaction PublishersGoogle Scholar
1992The interpenetration of communicative contexts: Examples from medical encounters. In Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon, A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (eds), 291–310. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Eelen, G
2001A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Gal, S. & Woolard, K
(eds) 2001Languages and Publics: The Making of Authority. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Goffman, E
1963Behavior in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings. New York NY: The Free Press.Google Scholar
1974Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Grice, P.H
1975The logic of conversation. In Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts, M. Cole & J. Morgan (eds), 64–75. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J
(1982) Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: CUP DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Higgins, C
2009English as a Local Language: Post-colonial Identities and Multilingual Practices. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hymes, D
1986[1972]Models of the interaction of language and social life. In Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication, J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (eds), 35–71. London: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
1996Ethnography, Linguistics, Narrative Inequality: Toward a Description of Voice. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Katz, J.J
1972Semantic Theory. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Kress, G. & van Leeuwen, T
1996Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Kroskrity, P
(ed.) 2000Regimes of Language. Santa Fe: SAR PressGoogle Scholar
Kroskrity, P., Schieffelin, B. & Woolard, K
(eds) 1992Language Ideologies. Special issue of Pragmatics 2(3): 235–453. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, G
1974Semantics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Louwerse, M
2014Keeping Those Words in Mind: Inaugural Address. Tilburg: Tilburg University.Google Scholar
Miller, V
2008New media, networking and phatic culture. Convergence 14: 387–400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pan, L
2015English as a Global Language in China. New York NY: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pennycook, A
2007Global English and Transcultural Flows. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rampton, B., Maybin, J. & Roberts, C
2014Methodological foundations in linguistic ethnography. Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies, paper 102. https://​www​.tilburguniversity​.edu​/upload​/74a2c0ed​-63fe​-4a97​-a2c5​-2c3f22f12c6b​_TPCS​_102​_Rampton​_etal​.pdfGoogle Scholar
Rieber, R
1989In search of the impertinent question: An overview of Bateson’s theory of communication. In The Individual, Communication, and Society: Essays in Memory of Gregory Bateson, R. Rieber (ed.), 1–28. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
de Saussure, F
1960Cours de Linguistique Générale, C. Bailly & A. Sechehaye (eds). Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E
1988Goffman and the analysis of conversation. In Erving Goffman: Exploring the Interaction Order, P. Drew & A. Wootton (eds), 89–135. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Seargeant, P
2009The Idea of English in Japan: Ideology and the Evolution of a Global Language. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, J
1969Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, M
1979Language structure and linguistic ideology. In The Elements: A Parasession on Linguistic Units and Levels, P. Clyne, W. Hanks & C. Hofbauer (eds), 193–247. Chicago IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
1985Language and the culture of gender. In Semiotic Mediation, E. Mertz & R. Parmentier (eds), 219–259. New York NY: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1992The uses and utility of ideology: Some reflections. Pragmatics 2(3): 311–323. Special issue on Language Ideologies, P.V. Kroskrity, B.B. Schieffelin & P.V. Woolard (eds). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996Monoglot ‘standard’ in America: Standardization and metaphors of linguistic hegemony. In The Matrix of Language: Contemporary Linguistic Anthropology, D. Brenneis & R. Macaulay (eds), 284–306. Boulder CA: Westview Press.Google Scholar
1998Contemporary transformations of local linguistic communities. Annual Review of Anthropology 27: 401–426. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014How language communities intersect: Is “super-diversity” an incremental or transformative condition? Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies, paper 107. https://​www​.tilburguniversity​.edu​/upload​/89a37ed3​-3c2d​-4d2b​-bfb3​-e907550f38f0​_TPCS​_107​_Silverstein​.pdfGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, M. & Urban, G
(eds) 1996Natural Histories of Discourse. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Varis, P. & Blommaert, J
2014Conviviality and collectives on social media: Virality, memes, and new social structures. Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies, paper 108. https://​www​.tilburguniversity​.edu​/research​/institutes​-and​-research​-groups​/babylon​/tpcs/Google Scholar
Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. & Jackson, D
1967Pragmatics of Human Communication. New York NY: Norton.Google Scholar
Winkin, Y
1981La Nouvelle Communication. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar