Imaginary Trialogues: Conceptual Blending and Fictive Interaction in Criminal Courts

Pascual, Esther

doi:10.1558/ijsll.v11i1.169

Cited by 42 publications

(80 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…More specifically, how they can make mental contact with potential realities that would otherwise have a non-interactional relationship. The type of face-to-face communication carried out during a fantasy play bears resemblance with what Pascual (2002Pascual ( , 2008 and Brandt (2008) call "fictive interaction". Such interactional structure does not mirror the observable communicative situation and "constitutes an invisible -although equally present and critical -channel of communication between fictive participants, who may or may not correspond to those in the actual situation of communication" (Pascual 2008, p. 81).…”

Section: The Split Self Engages In Pretend Playmentioning

confidence: 95%

Conceptual Blending in Children’s Games as a Model for Double-Scope Creativity and New Learning Opportunities

Tucan¹

2015

JFLTAL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fauconnier and Turner (2002, pp. 389-396) provide an overview of how blending affects the course of a human life, and more specifically, how young children are engaged in building complex blends in very early stages of their lives. Their detailed analysis shows that only after the young child is able to master culturally recognized blends will s/he be effectively 'living in the blend' and prove capable of further achieving other blends with more flexibility.

show abstract

Section: The Split Self Engages In Pretend Playmentioning

confidence: 95%

Conceptual Blending in Children’s Games as a Model for Double-Scope Creativity and New Learning Opportunities

Tucan¹

2015

JFLTAL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Rather, I will consider several different aspects of linguistic meaning 6 While the words are attributed to Stephanie, it does not imply that she actually said, or will say, them. This is a typical case of what Pascual (2002) calls "fictive interaction". By definition, all cases of fictive interaction are also cases of polyphonic reenactment: They involve characters presented as interacting with one another within an utterance.…”

Section: Reenactment and Meaningmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As I will show, this notion offers a clear conceptual link between the theory that understanding actions involves embodied simulation, central to some of the EC literature, and research in cognitive linguistics -particularly Construction Grammar (Croft 2001;Goldberg 2006) and work on intersubjectivity in language (e.g. Brandt and Brandt 2005;Du Bois forthcoming;Pascual 2002;Verhagen 2005;Zlatev et al 2008).…”

mentioning

confidence: 90%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reenactment: an embodied cognition approach to meaning and linguistic content

Sandler

2011

Phenom Cogn Sci

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. 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. KeywordsThese 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 Gallese and Lakoff (2005 There is a long-standing tradition aiming to account for linguistic meaning in terms of action-meaning. This is the mainstream approach in pragmatics (following Austin 1962).However, the traditional division of labor between pragmatics and semantics has left it to pragmatics to account for the meaning of utterances as actions, based on a referential-logical interpretation of their content. EC challenged this division of labor by proposing an account of concept meaning in terms of action meaning. Gallese and Lakoff (2005) partly performing them in the motor system of the brain.4 Borghi and Cimatti (2009) propose an important extension of this approach to account for abstract words. They raise the hypothesis that linguistic meaning is grounded in our embodied social experience. That is, we experience the use of words, our own and others', in various social settings as a situate...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 90%

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

Imaginary Trialogues: Conceptual Blending and Fictive Interaction in Criminal Courts

Cited by 42 publications

References 2 publications

Conceptual Blending in Children’s Games as a Model for Double-Scope Creativity and New Learning Opportunities

Conceptual Blending in Children’s Games as a Model for Double-Scope Creativity and New Learning Opportunities

Reenactment: an embodied cognition approach to meaning and linguistic content

Reenactment: An Embodied Cognition Approach to Meaning and Linguistic Content

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About