In:Normativity in Language and Linguistics
Edited by Aleksi Mäkilähde, Ville Leppänen and Esa Itkonen
[Studies in Language Companion Series 209] 2019
► pp. 125–150
The normative basis of construal
Published online: 4 December 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.209.05mot
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.209.05mot
Abstract
Normative and cognitive-linguistic accounts of linguistic meaning are often portrayed and conceived as mutually exclusive alternatives. This dichotomy stems from an insufficient understanding of what the phenomenological accessibility of meaning and usage-basedness of language entail. Namely, the theoretical premises of Cognitive Linguistics actually presuppose socially grounded, normative linguistic meanings. The question remains, what kind of entities normative meanings are like. The present chapter makes a case for construal, linguistic perspective-taking usually analyzed as a conceptual phenomenon, as a normative facet of meaning. Analysis presented here suggests that construal emerges as an inherent property of linguistic expressions via conventionalization of intentionality. This analysis does not only expand the area of linguistic normativity but also points to the integral relation between linguistic norms and intentionality.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Cognitive and socio-normative approaches to meaning: Bridging the gap
- 2.1Usage-based grammar: Social and cognitive facets of language
- 2.2Cognitive grammar, meaning, and normativity
- 3.Construal re-interpreted
- 3.1Construal in Cognitive Grammar
- 3.2Construal as conventionalized intentionality
- 4.Alternative construals in context: The role of normative meaning
- 5.Conclusion
Notes References
References (58)
Astington, Janet W. 2006. The developmental interdependence of theory of mind and language. In The Roots of Human Sociality. Culture, Cognition, and Human Interaction, Nick Enfield & Stephen C. Levinson (eds), 179–206. Oxford: Berg.
Banchetti-Robino, Marina. 1997. Husserl’s theory of language as calculus ratiocinator. Synthese 112: 303–321.
Barsalou, Lawrence W. 2010. Ad hoc categories. In The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Language Sciences, Patrick Colm Hogan (ed.), 87–88. Cambridge: CUP.
Blomberg, Johan & Zlatev, Jordan. 2014. Actual and non-actual motion: Why experientialist semantics needs phenomenology (and vice versa). Phenomenology and Cognitive Science 13: 395–418.
De Bruin, Leon & de Haan, Sanneke. 2012. Enactivism & social cognition: In search of the whole story. Journal of Cognitive Semiotics 4(1): 225–250.
Drummond, John J. 2012. Intentionality without Representationalism. In The Oxford Handbook of Contemporary Phenomenology, D. Zahavi (ed.), 115–133. Oxford: OUP.
Etelämäki, Marja & Visapää, Laura. 2014. Why blend Conversation Analysis with Cognitive Grammar? Pragmatics 24(3): 477–506.
Frege, Gottlob. [1892] 1949. On sense and nominatum [‘Über Sinn und Bedeutung’, translated by Herbert Feigl]. In Readings in Philosophical Analysis, Herbert Feigl & Sigfrid Sellars (eds), 85–102. New York NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Harder, Peter. 2010. Meaning in Mind and Society. A Functional Contribution to the Social Turn in Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Gallagher, Shaun & Hutto, Daniel. 2008. Understanding others through primary interaction. In The Shared Mind. Perspectives on Intersubjectivity [Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research 12], Jordan Zlatev, Timothy P. Racine, Chris Sinha & Esa Itkonen (eds), 17–38. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Haukioja, Jussi. 2000. Grammaticality, response-dependence and the ontology of linguistic objects. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 23: 3–25.
Husserl, Edmund. [1900–1901] 2001a. Logical Investigations 1. Prolegomena to Pure Logic, Expression and Meaning, The Ideal Unity of the Species and Modern Theories of Abstraction, translated by John Niemeyer Findlay from the second German edition of Logische Untersuchungen. London: Routledge.
. [1901] 2001b. Logical Investigations 2. On the Theory of Wholes and Parts, The Distinction Between Independent and Non-independent Meanings, On Intentional Experiences and their ‘Contents’, Elements of a Phenomenological Elucidation of Knowledge, translated by John Niemeyer Findlay from the second German edition of Logische Untersuchungen. London: Routledge.
Itkonen, Esa. 1978. Grammatical Theory and Metascience. A Critical Investigation into the Methodological and Philosophical Foundations of ‘Autonomous’ Linguistics [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 5]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
. 1997. The social ontology of linguistic meaning. In SKY Yearbook, Timo Haukioja, Marja-Liisa Helasvuo & Matti Miestamo (eds), 49–80. Helsinki: The Linguistic Association of Finland.
. 2003. What is Language? A Study in the Philosophy of Linguistics [Publications in General Linguistics 8]. Turku: University of Turku.
. 2008a. Concerning the role of consciousness in linguistics. Journal of Consciousness studies 15(6): 15–33.
. 2008b. The central role of normativity in language and linguistics. In The Shared Mind. Perspectives on Intersubjectivity [Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research 12], Jordan Zlatev, Timothy P. Racine, Chris Sinha & Esa Itkonen (eds), 279–305. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Jaakola, Minna, Töyry, Maija, Helle, Merja & Onikki-Rantajääskö, Tiina. 2014. Construing the reader: Multidisciplinary approach to journalistic texts. Discourse & Society 25(5): 640–655.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
1988. A Usage Based Model. In Topics in Cognitive Linguistics [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 50], Brygida Rudzka Ostyn (ed.), 127–161. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
2012. Interactive cognition: Toward a unified account of structure, processing, and discourse. International Journal of Cognitive Linguistics 3: 95–125.
2016a. Toward an integrated view of structure, processing, and discourse. In Studies in Lexicogrammar. Theory and Applications [Human Cognitive Processing 54], Grzegorz Drożdż (ed.), 23–53. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Mauri, Caterina. 2017. Building and interpreting ad hoc categories: A linguistic analysis. In Formal Models in the Study of Language, Joanna Blochowiak, Cristina Grisot, Stéphanie Durrleman & Christopher Laenzlinger (eds), 297–326. Berlin: Springer.
Meltzoff, Andrew N. & Moore, M. Keith. 1977. Imitation of facial and manual gestures by human neonates. Science, New Series 198: 75–78.
. 1994. Imitation, memory, and the representation of persons. Infant Behavior and Development 17: 83–99.
. 1997. Explaining facial imitation: A theoretical model. Early Development and Parenting 6: 179–192.
Möttönen, Tapani. 2016a. Construal in Expression: An Intersubjective Approach to Cognitive Grammar. PhD dissertation, University of Helsinki.
. 2016b. Dependence of construal on linguistic and pre-linguistic intersubjectivity. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 39(2): 209–229.
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2016. Why Cognitive Linguistics must embrace the social and pragmatic dimensions of language and how it could do so more seriously. Cognitive Linguistics 27(4): 543–557.
Stern, Daniel N. 1971. A microanalysis of mother-infant interaction. Journal of American Academy of Child Psychiatry 19: 501–517.
1985. The Interpersonal World of the Infant. A View from Psychoanalysis and Developmental Psychology. New York NY: Basic Books.
Trevarthen, Colwyn. 1979. Communication and cooperation in early infancy: A description of early intersubjectivity. In Before Speech. The Beginning of Human Communication, Margaret Bullowa (ed.), 99–136. Cambridge: CUP.
. 1980. The foundations of intersubjectivity. In The Social Foundations of Language and Thought, David R. Olson, Jerome Bruner & George A. Miller (eds), 216–242. New York NY: Norton.
Trevarthen, Colwyn & Aitken, Kenneth J. 2001. Infant intersubjectivity: Research, theory, and clinical applications. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 42(1): 3–48.
Verhagen, Arie. 2005. Constructions of Intersubjectivity. Discourse, Syntax, and Cognition. Oxford: OUP.
. 2007. Construal and perspectivisation. In Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, Dirk Geeraerts & Hubert Cuyckens (eds), 48–81. Oxford: OUP.
Zahavi, Dan. 1997. Horizontal intentionality and transcendental intersubjectivity. Tijdschrift voor Filosofie 59(2): 304–321.
. 2001. Beyond empathy: Phenomenological approaches to intersubjectivity. In Between Ourselves. Second-Person Issues in the Study of of Consciousness, E. Thompson (ed.), 151–167. Thorveton: Imprint Academic.
. 2003b. Husserl’s intersubjective transformation of transcendental philosophy. In The New Husserl. A Critical Reader, edited by Donn Welton, 233–254. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Press.
Zlatev, Jordan. 2005. What’s in a schema? Bodily mimesis and the grounding of language. In From Perception To Meaning. Image Schemas In Cognitive Linguistics, Beate Hampe (ed.), 313–342. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
. 2007a. Embodiment, language and mimesis. In Body, Language and Mind. Vol 1: Embodiment, Tom Ziemke, Jordan Zlatev & Roslyn M. Frank (eds), 297–337. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
. 2007b. Intersubjectivity, mimetic schemas and the emergence of language. Intellectica 46–47(2–3): 123–152.
. 2008a. The dependence of language on consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies 15(6): 34–62.
. 2008b. The co-evolution of intersubjectivity and bodily mimesis. In The Shared Mind. Perspectives on Intersubjectivity [Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research 12], Jordan Zlatev, Timothy P. Racine, Chris Sinha & Esa Itkonen (eds), 215–244. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
. 2010. Phenomenology and cognitive linguistics. In Handbook of Phenomenology and Cognitive Science, Daniel Schmicking & Shaun Gallagher (eds), 415–446. Dordrecht: Springer.
