Cover not available

In:Language, Culture and Identity – Signs of Life:
Edited by Vera da Silva Sinha, Ana Moreno-Núñez and Zhen Tian
[Cognitive Linguistic Studies in Cultural Contexts 13] 2020
► pp. 75–110

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Chapter 5
The representation-cohesion-stance hypothesis

 | University of Helsinki
Published online: 30 April 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/clscc.13.05spr
Abstract
This chapter argues that if we conceive of linguistic signs as inherently social signs, we should be able to capture social meaning at the grammatical level of the linguistic sign itself, not only in its use. It proposes that a way to do so is through analysing the linguistic sign as consisting of three semiotic modes, a symbolic, an iconic and an indexical mode. Using a descriptive grammatical approach, it illustrates these modes on the basis of a discourse structuring marker in the Australian Aboriginal language Ungarinyin and describes a linguistic methodology that applies separate analytical tools to each of the linguistic semiotic modes in order to capture interactions between these modes. This approach is referred to as the representation-cohesion-stance hypothesis. It is argued that only by accounting for non-symbolic meaning in a similar way that linguistics has traditionally accounted for symbolic meaning, we can develop a rounded view of socio-culturally conventionalised meaning.
Article outline
  • Introduction
    • The limits of grammar
  • A descriptive challenge: The Ungarinyin definite subject marker
    • Conventional meaning of the Ungarinyin definite subject
    • Definite subject clustering in discourse
  • Grammar as a social instructive tool and a semiotic hybrid
    • Grammar is multimodal, in a Peircian sense
    • Grammatical signs as instruction
    • The linguistic sign as instructive modes
  • Representation, cohesion, stance
    • The definition of the definite subject reformulated in semiotic terms
    • Cohesion
    • Definite subject markers with a dominant indexical mode: cohesion-stance transgression
  • Discussion
    • Representation, cohesion and stance and the analytical paradox of cognitive-functional grammar
    • The hypothesis
  • Conclusion: Grammatical analysis and the linguistic sign in flux
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (54)
References
Ariel, Mira. 1988. “Referring and accessibility.” Journal Linguisitics 24: 65–87. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bakhtin, Mikhail. 1993. Toward a Philosophy of the Act. (M. Holquist and V. Liapunov, eds.). Austin: University of Texas.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bühler, Karl. 1934. Sprachtheorie. Die Dahrstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Jena: Fischer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Callaghan, Tara, Moll, Henrike, Rakoczy, Hannes, Warneken, Felix, Liszkowski, Ulf, Behne, Tanya and Tomasello, Michael. 2011. Early Social Cognition in Three Cultural Contexts. Boston/Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1974. “Language and consciousness.” Language 50 (1): 111–133. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1994. Discourse, consciousness, and time: the flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2005. “Three Factors in Language Design.” LinguisticInquiry 36 (1): 1–22.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coate, Howard H. J., and Oates, Lynette Frances. 1970. A Grammar of Ngarinjin, Western Australia. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara. 2016. “Concluding remarks: Why viewpoint matters.” In Viewpoint and the Fabric of Meaning: Form and Use of Viewpoint Tools across Languages and Modalities, Barbara Dancygier, Wei-lun Lu, and Arie Verhagen (eds.), 281–288. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dor, Daniel. 2015. The Instruction of Imagination: Language as a Social Communication Technology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. “From experience to imagination: Language and its evolution as a social communication technology.” Journal Neurolinguistics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 1987. “The Discourse Basis of Ergativity.” Language 63 (4): 805–855. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2007. “The stance triangle.” In Stancetaking in Discourse. Robert Englebretson (ed), 139–182. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferrara, Lindsay, and Hodge, Gabrielle. 2018. “Language as Description, Indication, and Depiction.” Frontiers Psychology 9. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara. 1987. “Anaphora in popular written English narratives.” In Coherence and grounding in discourse, Russell S. Tomlin (ed), 157–174. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. Principles shaping grammatical practices: an exploration. Discourse Studies 9 (3): 299–318.. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fried, Mirjam and Östman, Jan-Ola. 2004. “Construction Grammar: A thumbnail sketch.” In Construction Grammar in a Cross-Language Perspective. Mirjam Fried and Jan-Ola Östman (eds.), 11–86. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gijn, Rik van. 2016. “Switch reference: An overview.” In Switch Reference 2.0. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: a Construction Grammar approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2009. “The nature of generalization in language.” CognitiveLinguistics 20 (1): 93–127.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1985. An introduction to functional grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. and Hasan, Ruqaia. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees and Mackenzie, J. Lachlan. 2008. Functional Discourse Grammar: A typologically-based theory of language structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 1998. “Documentary and descriptive linguistics.” Journal Linguistics 36: 161–195.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas and Trousdale, Graeme (eds.). 2013. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1980. The framework of language. Michigan: Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studies.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kaminski, Juliane, Call, Josep and Tomasello, Michael. 2008. “Chimpanzees know what others know, but not what they believe.” Cognition 109: 224–234. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kibrik, Andrej A. 1999. “Reference and working memory cognitive inferences from discourse observations.” In Discourse Studies in Cognitive Linguistics. Karen Van Hoek, Andrej A. Kibrik and Leo Noordman (eds.), 29–52. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2011. Reference in Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2009. “Cognitive (Construction) Grammar.” CognitiveLinguistics 20 (1): 167–176.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McGregor, William B. 2002. Verb classification in Australian languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2013. “Optionality in grammar and language use.” Linguistics 51 (6): 1147–1204. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McGregor, William B. and Rumsey, Alan. 2009. Worrorran Revisited. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mercier, Hugo and Sperber, Dan. 2011. “Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory.” Behavioral brain sciences 34: 57–111. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2017. The Enigma of Reason. Harvard: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Merrell, Floyd. 2001. “Charles Sanders Peirce’s Concept of the Sign.” In The Routledge Companion to Semiotics and Linguistics, Paul Cobley (ed), 28–39. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moll, Henrike, Carpenter, Malinda and Tomasello, Michael. 2014. “Two- and 3-Year-Olds Know What Others Have and Have Not Heard.” Journal Cognition Development, 15 (1): 12–21. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nichols, Joanna. 1986. Head-marking and dependent-marking languages. Language 62: 524–541. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roberts, John R. 1987. Amele. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor. 1975. “Cognitive representations of semantic categories.” Journal Experimental Psychology: General 104: 192–233. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, R. Shayna, Stuss, Donald T., Levine, Brian, and Tulving, Endel. 2007. “Theory of mind is independent of episodic memory.” Science 318: 1257. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rumsey, Alan. 1982. An Intra-Sentence Grammar of Ungarinjin, North-Western Australia. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Selting, Margret and Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth (eds.). 2001. Studies in Interactional Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. “Hierarchy of features and ergativity.” In Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages. Robert M. W. Dixon (ed), 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Spronck, Stef. 2020. Grammar and levels of addressivity: Exploring Ungarinyin engagement. Open Linguistics. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Spronck, Stef. 2015. Reported speech in Ungarinyin: grammar and social cognition in a language of the Kimberley region, Western Australia. The Australian National University. Available at [URL]
Stirling, Lesley. 1993. Switch-reference and discourse representation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014a. A Natural History of Human Thinking. Cambridge/London: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014b. “The ultra-social animal.” European Journal Social Psychology 44: 187–194. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2010. “(Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment.” In Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization, Kristine Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte and Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), 29–71. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Valin, Jr. Robert D. and LaPolla, Randi J. 1997. Syntax: structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Claire Bowern
2023. The Oxford Guide to Australian Languages, DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 december 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue