Cover not available

In:The Conversation Frame: Forms and functions of fictive interaction
Edited by Esther Pascual and Sergeiy Sandler
[Human Cognitive Processing 55] 2016
► pp. 23–41

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

Fictive interaction and the nature of linguistic meaning

 | Independent scholar, Israel
Published online: 1 November 2016
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.55.02san
One may distinguish between three broad conceptions of linguistic meaning. One conception, which I will call “logical”, views meaning as given in reference (for words) and truth (for sentences). Another conception, the “monological” one, seeks meaning in the cognitive capacities of the single mind. A third, “dialogical”, conception attributes meaning to interaction between individuals and personal perspectives. In this chapter I directly contrast how well these three approaches deal with the evidence brought forth by fictive interaction. I examine instances of fictive interaction and argue that intersubjectivity in these instances cannot be reduced to either referential-logical or individual-cognitive semantic notions. It follows that intersubjectivity must belong to the essence of linguistic meaning.
References (61)
References
Bach, K. (1994). Conversational impliciture. Mind and Language, 9(2), 124–162. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2005). Context ex machina . In Z. Gendler Szabó (Ed.), Semantics versus pragmatics (pp. 15–44). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bakhtin, M.M. (1981). Discourse in the novel. In The dialogic imagination: Four essays (pp. 259–422). Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barnes, J. (Ed.). (1984). The complete works of Aristotle: The revised Oxford translation, Vol. 1. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bilmes, J. (1985). “Why that now?” Two kinds of conversational meaning. Discourse Processes, 8, 319–355. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bråten, S. (Ed). (1998). Intersubjective communication and emotion in early ontogeny. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brône, G., & Zima, E. (2014). Towards a dialogic construction grammar: Ad hoc routines and resonance activation. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(3), 457–495. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cappelen, H., & Lepore, E. (2005). Radical and moderate pragmatics: Does meaning determine truth conditions? In Z. Gendler Szabó (Ed.), Semantics versus pragmatics (pp. 45–71). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, H.H., & Gerrig, R.J. (1990). Quotation as demonstration. Language, 66(4): 784–805. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cooren, F., & Sandler, S. (2014). Polyphony, ventriloquism, and constitution: In dialogue with Bakhtin. Communication Theory, 24, 225–244. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coulson, S., & Oakley, T. (2006) Purple persuasion: Conceptual Blending and deliberative rhetoric. In J. Luchjenbroers (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics: Investigations across languages, fields, and philosophical boundaries (pp. 47–65). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2009). Toward a social cognitive linguistics. In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in cognitive linguistics (pp. 395–420). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dancygier, B., & Sweetser, E. (Eds.). (2012). Viewpoint in language: A multimodal perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Brabanter, P. (2005). The impact of autonymy on the lexicon. Word, 56(2), 171–200.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Du Bois, J.W. [2001] (2014). Towards a dialogic syntax. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(3), 359–410. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ducrot, O. (1984). Le dire et le dit. Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. [1985] (1994). Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1990). Invisible meaning. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society , 16, 390–404.
. (1997). Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (1996). Blending as a central process of grammar. In A.E. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language (pp. 113–130). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1998). Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 2(1), 133–187. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gallese, V., & Cuccio, V. (2015). The paradigmatic body: Embodied simulation, intersubjectivity and the bodily self. In T. Metzinger & J.M. Windt (Eds.), Open MIND (pp. 1–23). Frankfurt: MIND Group. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gallese, V., & Goldman, A. (1998). Mirror neurons and the simulation theory of mind-reading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2(12), 493–501. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gasparov, B. (2010). Speech, memory, and meaning: Intertextuality in everyday language. Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gendler Szabó, Z. (Ed.). (2005). Semantics versus pragmatics. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grice, H.P. (1957). Meaning. Philosophical Review, 66(3), 377–388. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hougaard, A. (2004). How’re we doing: An interactional approach to cognitive processes of online meaning construction. PhD dissertation, University of Southern Denmark.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hopper, P.J. (1998). Emergent grammar. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure (pp. 155–175). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G.H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–31). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kaplan, D. (1989). Demonstratives. In J. Almog, J. Perry, & H. Wettstein (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan (pp. 481–563). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Sweetser, E. (1994). Foreword. In G. Fauconnier , Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language (pp. ix–xvi). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R.W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Volume 1, Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oakley, T., & Coulson, S. (2008). Connecting the dots: Mental spaces and metaphoric language in discourse. In T. Oakley & A. Hougaard (Eds.), Mental spaces in discourse and interaction (pp. 27–50). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oakley, T., & Hougaard, A. (Eds.). (2008). Mental spaces in discourse and interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ochs, E., Schegloff, E.A., & Thompson, S.A. (Eds.). (1996). Interaction and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pascual, E. (2002). Imaginary trialogues: Conceptual blending and fictive interaction in criminal courts. Utrecht: LOT Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2006). Fictive interaction within the sentence: A communicative type of fictivity in grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(2), 245–267. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pascual, E., Królak, E., & Janssen, Th. A.J.M. (2013). Direct speech compounds: Evoking socio-cultural scenarios through fictive interaction. Cognitive Linguistics, 24(2), 345–366. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rosch, E.H. (1973). Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 328–350. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Salmon, N. (1991). The pragmatic fallacy. Philosophical Studies, 63, 83–97. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sandler, S. (2009). The dialogical approach in the philosophy of language. PhD dissertation, Ben Gurion University of the Negev. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stanley, J. (2000). Context and logical form. Linguistics and Philosophy, 23(4), 391–434. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Travis, C. (1996). Meaning’s role in truth. Mind, 105(419), 451–466. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Verhagen, A. (2005). Constructions of intersubjectivity: Discourse, syntax, and cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Voloshinov, V.N. (1986). Marxism and the philosophy of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vossler, K. (1932). The spirit of language in civilization. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wold, A.H. (Ed.). (1992). The dialogical alternative: Towards a theory of language and mind. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zlatev, J., Racine, T.P., Sinha, C., & Itkonen, E. (Eds.). (2008). The shared mind: Perspectives on intersubjectivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

Bamba, Satoshi
2025. The generation and suspension of meaning in Dostoevsky’s Demons. Studies in East European Thought 77:5 ► pp. 1013 ff. DOI logo
Fotiou, Constantina
2024. Didn’t she say to you, “Oh my God! In Pafos?”. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) 34:1 ► pp. 81 ff. DOI logo
PASCUAL, ESTHER & BÁRBARA MARQUETA GRACIA
2024. Viewpointed morphology: A unified account of Spanish verb-complement compounds as fictive interaction structures. Journal of Linguistics 60:2 ► pp. 399 ff. DOI logo
Brody, Mary Jill
2019. Heightened Discourse and Dialogical Syntax in Tojol‐ab'al Conversation. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 29:2 ► pp. 221 ff. DOI logo
Sandler, Sergeiy & Esther Pascual
2019. In the beginning there was conversation. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) ► pp. 250 ff. DOI logo
Abdel-Raheem, Ahmed
2018. Mental models, (de)compressions, and the actor’s process in body-swap movies. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 5:2 ► pp. 376 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 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