Cover not available

Editorial published In: Meaning in Interaction: Studies in memory of Jack Bilmes
Edited by Arnulf Deppermann and Elwys De Stefani
[Interactional Linguistics 3:1/2] 2023
► pp. 167–177

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

Meaning as referential work

Reflections on the research object of Interactional Semantics

ORCiD logo with link | University of Groningen | University of the WitwatersrandJohannesburg
Published online: 30 April 2024
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/il.24008.koo
Abstract
This epilogue to the Special Issue on Interactional Semantics discusses the contributions to the Special Issue in relation to other research to support three arguments. (i) The choice of Interactional Semantics to take the referential function of language (Jakobson) as its object of research is a welcome choice. (ii) The use of the term ‘meaning’ for this research object is potentially confusing and could be replaced by ‘referential work’. (iii) A research topic which could be included in Interactional Semantics and has not been articulated as such, is the way in which the choice of a referential expression establishes the referent as a particular social reality and is a tacit proposal to the interlocutors to talk about this referent in these terms.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Research object of Interactional Semantics
  • 3.The meaning of ‘meaning’
  • 4.Aspects of an Interactional Semantics research program
  • 5.Conclusion
  • References
References (48)
References
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bilmes, J. (2015). The structure of meaning in talk: Explorations in category analysis. Volume I1: Co-categorization, contrast, and hierarchy. [URL]
(2020). The discussion of abortion in US political debates: A study in occasioned semantics. Discourse Studies, 22(3), 291–318. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bühler, K. (1982 [1934]). Sprachtheorie. Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2012). Some truths and untruths about final intonation in conversational questions. In Jan P. de Ruiter (Ed.) Questions: formal, functional and interactional perspectives (pp. 123–145). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). What does grammar tell us about action? Pragmatics 24(3), 623–647.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. & M. Selting (Eds.) (1996). Prosody in conversation: interactional studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2018). Interactional Linguistics. Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Deppermann, A. (2007). Grammatik und Semantik aus gesprächsanalytischer Sicht. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). The study of formulations as a key to an interactional semantics. Human Studies, 34(2), 115–128. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Depperman, A. & E. De Stefani (this issue). Editorial: Meaning in Interaction, Interactional Linguistics.
Deppermann, A. & M. Haugh (Eds.) (2022). Action Ascription in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Stefani, E. (2023). Displaying a negative stance by questioning meaning. The Italian format Che cosa vuol dire X? (‘Whatdoes X mean?’). Interactional Linguistics 3 (1/2), 40–66.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Edwards, D. (1991). Categories are for talking: On the cognitive and discursive bases of categorization. Theory & Psychology 1(4), 515–542. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1997). Discourse and Cognition. London: Sage. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1998). The Relevant Thing about Her: Social Identity Categories in Use. In C. Antaki & S. Widdicombe (Eds.) Identities in Talk (pp. 15–33). London: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Edwards, D. & J. Potter. (1992). Discursive Psychology. London: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. (2022). Language vs. Reality. Why Language is Good for Lawyers and Bad for Scientists. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Prentice Hall: Polity PressGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J. & D. Hymes (Eds.) (1986 [1972]). Directions in Sociolinguistics. The Ethnography of Communication. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Helmer, H. (2023). Ad-hoc-compounds in spoken German: (When) do we need compositionality? Interactional Linguistics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2007). Intersubjectivity and progressivity in person (and place) reference. In N. J. Enfield & T. Stivers (Eds.) Person Reference in Interaction. Linguistic, cultural and social perspectives (pp.255–280). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Epistemics in Action: Action Formation and Territories of Knowledge, Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Epistemics in Conversation. In: J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.) The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 370–394.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage, J. & T. Stivers. (2013). Conversation Analysis and Sociology. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.) The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 659–673). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1960). Linguistics and Poetics. In T. Sebeok (Ed.) Style in Language (pp.350–377). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koole, T. & M. N. Gosen. (2024). Scopes of recipiency: An organization of responses to informings. Journal of Pragmatics 2221, 25–39. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maynard, D. W. (2013). Everyone and No One to Turn to. Intellectual Roots and Contexts for Conversation Analysis. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.) The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp.11–31). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mazeland, H. & L. Plug. (2010). Doing confirmation with ja/nee hoor. Sequential and prosodic characteristics of a Dutch discourse particle. In D. Barth-Weingarten, E. Reber & M. Selting (Eds.) Prosody in Interaction (pp.161 – 188). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2011). Understanding as an embodied, situated and sequential achievement in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 431, 542–552. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021). Orchestrating Multi-sensoriality in Tasting Sessions: Sensing Bodies, Normativity, and Language. Symbolic Interaction 44(1), 63–86. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1986). Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies 9(2–3), 219–229. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Potter, J. (1996). Representing Reality. Discourse, Rhetoric and Social Construction. London: Sage. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Raymond, G. & J. Heritage. (2006). The epistemics of social relations: Owning grandchildren. Language in Society 351, 677–705. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1972). On the Analyzability of Stories by Children. In J. J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.) Directions in Sociolinguistics. The Ethnography of Communication (pp.325–345). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1992). Lectures on Conversation. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sacks, H. & E. A. Schegloff. (1979). Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In G. Psathas (Ed.) Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp.15–21). New York: Irvington.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Saeed, J. I. (2015). Semantics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1972). Notes on a conversational practice: Formulating place. In D. Sudnow (Ed.) Studies in social interaction (pp.75–119). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schutz, A. (1962). The Problem of Social Reality. Springer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts. An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stevanovic, M. & A. Peräkylä. (2012). Deontic Authority in Interaction: The Right to Announce, Propose, and Decide. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(3), 297–321. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stokoe, E. (2012). Moving forward with membership categorization analysis: Methods for systematic analysis. Discourse Studies, 14(3), 277–303. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Altan, Senem & Ahmet Tuncay Erdem
2025. SPİRİTÜEL LİDERLİĞİN ONTOLOJİK İYİ OLUŞA ETKİSİNDE İŞİN ANLAMLILIĞININ ARACILIK ROLÜ: SAĞLIK SEKTÖRÜNDE BİR ARAŞTIRMA. Hacettepe Sağlık İdaresi Dergisi 28:1 ► pp. 31 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 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