Cover not available

In:Verb and Context: The impact of shared knowledge on TAME categories
Edited by Susana Rodríguez Rosique and Jordi M. Antolí Martínez
[IVITRA Research in Linguistics and Literature 34] 2023
► pp. 307–326

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

Meaning, degrees of abstraction and shared knowledge

 | Universitat d’Alacant
Published online: 4 January 2023
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ivitra.34.13san
Abstract
Human communication has proven to be a complex, multi-layered phenomenon, embracing social and individual, abstract and concrete, conceptual and referential elements. This complexity has found its reflection in the several linguistic branches devoted to its study: cognitive and functional linguistics, semantics, pragmatics, sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, discourse analysis, conversational analysis, among others. Far from excluding each other, these different strands can be complementary and contribute to a better understanding of human communication and the semiotic system attached to it. The main objective of this chapter is to bring together the knowledge on human communication, language and meaning construction in order to relate meaning with its different levels of abstraction and pinpoint a definition of shared knowledge.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Language and meaning
  • 3.Language and abstraction levels
    • 3.1Form, meaning and transmitted knowledge
    • 3.2Degrees of transmitted knowledge
    • 3.3Transmitted knowledge and language segmentation
  • 4.Cultural models, shared knowledge and common ground
  • 5.An intermediate degree of abstraction: Form, meaning and context
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (72)
References
Brewer, William F. and Treyens, James C. 1981. “Role of schemata in memory for places.” Cognitive Psychology 13: 207–230. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
British National Corpus (BNC). [URL]
Brown-Schmidt, Sarah, Gunlogson, Christine and Tanenhaus, Michael K. 2008. “Addressees distinguish shared from private information when interpreting questions during interactive conversation.” Cognition 107: 1122–1134. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Busse, Dietrich. 2008. “Linguistische Epistemologie. Zur Konvergenz von kognitiver und kulturwissenschaftlicher Semantik am Beispiel von Begriffsgeschichte, Diskursanalyse und Frame-Semantik.” In Sprache-Kognition-Kultur. Sprache zwischen mentaler Struktur und kultureller Prägung, Heidrun Kamper and Ludwig M. Eichinger (eds), 73–114. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2007. Frequency of Use and the Organization of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. Language change. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. and Carlson, Thomas B. 1981. “Context for comprehension.” In Attention and Performance IX, John B. Long and Alan Baddeley (eds), 313–330. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. and Marshall, Catherine R. 1981. “Definite reference and mutual knowledge.” In Elements of Discourse Understanding, Arvind K. Joshi, Bonnie L. Webber and Ivan A. Sag (eds), 10–63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H., Schreuder, Robert and Buttrick, Samuel. 1983. “Common ground and the understanding of demonstrative reference.” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 22: 245–258. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
D’Andrade, Roy. 1987. “A folk model of the mind”. In Cultural models in language and thought, D. Holland & N. Quinn, 112–148. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
D’Andrade, Roy G. 1992. “Schemas and motivation.” In Human Motivation and Cultural Models, Roy G. D’Andrade and Claudia Strauss (eds), 23–44. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2014. “Usage-Based Linguistics.” In Oxford Bibliographies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Evans, Vyv. 2006. “Lexical Concepts, Cognitive Models and Meaning-construction.” Cognitive Linguistics 17 (4): 491–534. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1985. Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles. 1982. “Frame Semantics.” In Universals in Linguistic Theory, Emmon Bach and Robert T. Harms (eds), 1–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1985. “Frames and the semantics of understanding.” Quaderni di Semantica 6: 222–254.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dick and Cuickens, Hubert. 2007. The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk and Grondelaers, Stefan. 1995. “Looking back at anger: Cultural traditions and looking back at anger: Cultural traditions and metaphorical.” In Language and the Construal of the World, John Taylor and Robert MacLaury (eds), 153–180. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 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
. 2013. “Constructionist approaches.” In Construction Grammar Handbook, Thomas Hoffmann and Graeme Trousdale (eds). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1975. “Logic and conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, Peter Cole and Jerry Morgan (eds), 41–58. London: Academic Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hanna, Joy E., Tanenhaus, Michael K. and Trueswell, John C. 2003. “The effects of common ground and perspective on domains of referential interpretation.” Journal of Memory and Language 49: 43–61. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heller, Daphna, Grodner, Daniel and Tanenhaus, Michael K. 2008. “The role of perspective in identifying domains of reference.” Cognition 108: 831–836. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holland, Dorothy and Quinn, Naomi. 1987. “Culture and cognition.” In Cultural Models in Language and Thought, Dorothy Holland and Naomi Quinn (eds), 3–42. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Horton, William S. 2012. “Shared knowledge, mutual understanding and meaning negotiation.” In Cognitive pragmatics, Hans-Jörg Schmid (ed), 375–404. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Horton, William S. and Gerrig, Richard J. 2005. “Conversational common ground and memory processes in language production.” Discourse Processes 40: 1–35. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnson, Mark. 2007. The Meaning of the Body. Aesthetics of Human Understanding. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird, Philip N. 1983. Mental Models. Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference and Consciousness. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan. 2007. “Formulaic language in English lingua franca”. In Explorations in pragmatics: Linguistic, cognitive and intercultural aspects, Istvan Kecskes and Laurence R. Horn, 191–219. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kecskes, István. 2008. “Dueling Context: A dynamic model of meaning.” Journal of Pragmatics 40 (3): 385–406. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan. 2012. “Encyclopaedic knowledge and cultural models.” In Cognitive pragmatics, Hans-Jörg Schmid (ed), 177–200. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kecskes, István and Zhang, Fenghui. 2009. “Activating, Seeking and Creating Common Ground: A socio-cognitive approach.” Pragmatics & Cognition 17 (2): 331–355. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, George and Johnson, Mark. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. What Categories Reveal About The Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen. 1995. “Three levels of meaning.” In Grammar and Meaning: Essays in Honour of Sir John Lyons, Frank R. Palmer (ed), 90–115. Cambridge: Cambridge. University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2000. Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lewis, David. 1979. “Scorekeeping in a Language Game.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 8: 339–359. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mannsfield, John. In press. “The word as a unit of internal predictability.” Linguistics. Preprint.
Martines, Josep. 2020. “Cap a una semàntica cognitiva del català (I): la cognició, el cos, l’espai i el temps.” Estudis Romànics 42: 323–343.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A. and Min-Chun, Hsiao (Allen). 2021. “Verbing and Linguistic Innovation.” Frontiers in Communication, 6. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Minsky, Marvin. 1975. “A framework for representing knowledge”. In The psychology of computer vision, P. H. Winston. New York: McGraw-Hill Book.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pickering, Martin J. and Garrod, Simon. 2004. “Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27: 169–226. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006. “Alignment as the basis for successful communication.” Research on Language and Computation 4: 203–228. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Piirainen, Elisabeth. 2012. Widespread Idioms in Europe and Beyond. Toward a Lexicon of Common Figurative Units. New York: Peter Lang. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reddy, Michael. 1979. “The conduit metaphor.” In Metaphor and thought. Andrew Ortony (ed). Cambridge Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sánchez-López, Elena. 2015. “Phraseologization as a process of semantic change.” Catalan Journal of Linguistics 14: 159–177. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2020. “On the importance of a diachronic approach to phraseology.” In Changes in Meaning and Function: Studies in historical linguistics with a focus on Spanish, Jorge Fernández and Herminia Provencio (eds), 300–329. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2021. “Llengua, significat i la unitat mínima.” In Variació i canvi lingüístic. Un acostament diacrònic. Valencia: Tirant lo Blanch.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schank, Roger C. and Abelson, Robert P. 1977. Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding: An Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2003. “An outline of the role of context in comprehension.” In Anglistentag 2002 Bayreuth. Proceedings, Ewald Mengel, Hans-Jörg Schmid and Michael Steppat (eds). Trier: Wvt.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. “Entrenchment, salience, and basic levels.” In The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, Dick Geeraerts and Hubert Cuickens, 117–138. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(ed.). 2012a. Cognitive pragmatics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012b. “Generalizing the apparently ungeneralizable. Basic ingredients of a cognitive-pragmatic approach to the construal of meaning in-context.” In Cognitive pragmatics, Hans-Jörg Schmid (ed), 3–24. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schwarz, Monika. 1992. Kognitive Semantiktheorie and neuropsychologische Realität. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Searle, John. 1983. Intentionality: An essay in the philosophy of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan and Wilson, Deirdre. 1985–1996. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taylor, John R. 2006. “Polysemy and the lexicon.” In Cognitive Linguistics: Current Applications and Future Perspectives, Gitte Kristiansen, Michel Achard, Rene Dirven and Francisco Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez (eds), 51–80. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2012. “Contextual salience, domains, and active zones.” In Cognitive pragmatics, Hans-Jörg Schmid (ed), 151–174. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. and Dasher, Richard B. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. and Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2015. “Toward a coherent account of grammatical constructionalization.” In Diachronic Construction Grammar, Jóhanna Barðdal, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer and Spike Gildea (eds), 51–80. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme. 2014. “Theory and data in diachronic Construction Grammar. The case of the what with construction.” In Theory and Data in Cognitive Linguistics, Nikolas Gisborne and Willem B. Hollmann (eds), 115–140. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wengeler, Martin and Ziem, Alexander. 2014. “Wie über Krisen geredet wird: Einige Ergebnisse eines diskursgeschichtlichen Forschungsprojektex.” Zeitschrif für Literatur und Linguistik 173: 52–74. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wray, Alison. 2002. Formulaic Language And The Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ziem, Alexander. 2008. Frames und sprachliches Wissen: kognitive Aspekte der semantischen Kompetenz. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. “Lexicalische Felder, konzeptuelle Metaphern und Domänenmischungen im Interdiskurs Fußball.” Zeitschrift für Semiotik 32 (3–4): 305–328.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. “Wozu Kognitive Semantik?” In Linguistische Diskursanalyse: neue Perspektiven, Dietrich Busse and Wolfgang Teubert (eds). Cham: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ziem, Alexander and Lasch, Alexander. 2013. Konstruktionsgrammatik: Konzepte und Grundlagen gebrauchsbasierter Ansätze. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue