Emergent Grammar

Hopper, Paul J.

doi:10.3765/bls.v13i0.1834

Cited by 913 publications

(275 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

211

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In the first type of analysis, fairly abstract linguistic forms are assigned invariant meanings, in contrast with other fairly abstract linguistic forms, and more contextually-derived forms and meanings arising through laminations of other 'semiotic resources' (Goodwin 2000;Rossi 2015a). The second type of analysis starts with much more granular details, which are perhaps made up of multiple practices converging and emerging into a single utterance through the exigencies of the moment of interaction (Hopper 1987;Fox & Heinemann 2016). These two types of analysis are reminiscent of two approaches in discourse-functional syntax and other usagebased approaches to form-function relationships: in one approach, a form has a single (abstract) function, and variations of function are said to arise in different kinds of context; in the second approach, a single form may have multiple functions with no single overarching function (e.g., Kirsner 1993;Bybee 2010).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Issues in Action Formation: Requests and the Problem with x

Fox

Heinemann

2017

Open Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:In previous interactional studies of formats for utterances doing requests, attention has been given to the initial verb (such as can/could or wonder) and possibly the subject (especially I vs you). The current study examines the main types of grammatical variation found in what we call the "x component," that is the segment after the initial verb and subject. We examine two types of requests: those with can you x and those with wonder x, and we find that variations in the x component in these requests are associated with variations in the unfolding development of the request sequences. We thus suggest that the x component is crucial to the interactional work accomplished by the requesting utterance.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Issues in Action Formation: Requests and the Problem with x

Fox

Heinemann

2017

Open Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…18 This distinction between internal vs. external perception has been referred to as endogenous vs. exogenous perception by Fernández Jaén (2006b: 393). 19 In the wake of Hopper (1998) andfollowing Company Company (2004: 65) we consider 'grammaticalization' as an umbrella term referring to "un macrocambio dinámico, un cambio de cambios, que engloba distintas subclases y procesos […] la rutinización o cristalización del uso, sea cual sea la direccionalidad del cambio" [a dynamic macro change, a change of changes, which includes several subclasses and processes [...] the routinization or crystallization of the use, regardless of the directionality of the change]. Due to space limitations, we will not go into details here concerning the degree of grammaticalization and (inter)subjectification of the expression lo siento.…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the crosslinguistic equivalence of sentir(e) in Romance languages: A contrastive study in semantics

Enghels

Jansegers

2013

Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…And indeed, constructions may, and do, inherit specifically "actional" features of meaning from utterances. They often become associated with particular situations of utterance, particular kinds of speakers (Hopper 1998), particular genres and discourses (Fairclough 1992), and particular discursive accomplishments. 10…”

Section: Constructions As Communicative Action Routinesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reenactment: An Embodied Cognition Approach to Meaning and Linguistic Content

Sandler¹

2011

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. A central finding in experimental research identified with Embodied Cognition (EC) is that understanding actions involves their embodied simulation, i.e. executing some processes involved in performing these actions. Extending these findings, I argue that reenactment -the overt embodied simulation of actions and practices, including especially communicative actions and practices, within utterances -makes it possible to forge an integrated EC-based account of linguistic meaning. In particular, I argue: (a) that remote entities can be referred to by reenacting actions performed with them; (b) that the use of grammatical constructions can be conceived of as the reenactment of linguistic action routines; (c) that complex enunciational structures (reported speech, irony, etc.) involve a separate level of reenactment, on which characters are presented as interacting with one another within the utterance; (d) that the segmentation of long utterances into shorter units involves the reenactment of brief audience interventions between units; and (e) that the overall meaning of an utterance can be stated in reenactment terms. The notion of reenactment provides a conceptual framework for accounting for aspects of language that are usually thought to be outside the reach of EC in an EC framework, thus supporting a view of meaning and linguistic content as thoroughly grounded in action and interaction. Keywords: action; cognitive linguistics; dialogue; embodied cognition; meaning; simulation. 1 Language has often been viewed as the epitome of abstract cognition, as formal logical calculus in thin disguise. Accordingly, in the debates around embodied cognition (EC) and embodied social cognition, 1 raging in cognitive science today, the supposedly disembodied nature of language and meaning -abstract concepts, logical syntactic rules, etc. -counts against EC.EC-based and related approaches instead tend to view language as a tool of human action and interaction (e.g. Tylén et al. 2010). However, these approaches face a challenge when dealing with linguistic content: if we view utterances consistently as actions, how do we account for the meanings of their parts (e.g. words, phrases) and for the relation between the meanings of these parts and the meaning of a whole utterance in action terms? This challenge Furthermore, the proposed framework can be extended to phenomena that received little attention in EC and cognitive linguistic literature. I will particularly focus on reference to remote objects and complex enunciational structures, such as reported speech and irony.These linguistic theories and phenomena are discussed in the latter part of the paper.Before that, a more detailed discussion is due of the notion of reenactment itself, its connection to EC, and the conception of meaning it presumes. 1 I will address social cognition only in the basic sense of meaningfully interacting with others, ignoring issues that have to do with the so-called "theory of mind". 2 I am thus following a programme akin to that of Gal...

show abstract

Emergent Grammar

Abstract: Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (1987), pp. 139-157

Cited by 913 publications

References 0 publications

Issues in Action Formation: Requests and the Problem with x

Issues in Action Formation: Requests and the Problem with x

On the crosslinguistic equivalence of sentir(e) in Romance languages: A contrastive study in semantics

Reenactment: An Embodied Cognition Approach to Meaning and Linguistic Content

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About