Chapter 5
The representation-cohesion-stance hypothesis
This chapter argues that if we conceive of linguistic signs as inherently social signs, we should be able to capture social meaning at the grammatical level of the linguistic sign itself, not only in its use. It proposes that a way to do so is through analysing the linguistic sign as consisting of three semiotic modes, a symbolic, an iconic and an indexical mode. Using a descriptive grammatical approach, it illustrates these modes on the basis of a discourse structuring marker in the Australian Aboriginal language Ungarinyin and describes a linguistic methodology that applies separate analytical tools to each of the linguistic semiotic modes in order to capture interactions between these modes. This approach is referred to as the representation-cohesion-stance hypothesis. It is argued that only by accounting for non-symbolic meaning in a similar way that linguistics has traditionally accounted for symbolic meaning, we can develop a rounded view of socio-culturally conventionalised meaning.
Article outline
- Introduction
- A descriptive challenge: The Ungarinyin definite subject marker
- Conventional meaning of the Ungarinyin definite subject
- Definite subject clustering in discourse
- Grammar as a social instructive tool and a semiotic hybrid
- Grammar is multimodal, in a Peircian sense
- Grammatical signs as instruction
- The linguistic sign as instructive modes
- Representation, cohesion, stance
- The definition of the definite subject reformulated in semiotic terms
- Cohesion
- Definite subject markers with a dominant indexical mode: cohesion-stance transgression
- Discussion
- Representation, cohesion and stance and the analytical paradox of cognitive-functional grammar
- The hypothesis
- Conclusion: Grammatical analysis and the linguistic sign in flux
-
Acknowledgements
-
Notes
-
References
References (54)
References
Ariel, Mira. 1988. “Referring and accessibility.” Journal Linguisitics 24: 65–87. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bakhtin, Mikhail. 1993. Toward a Philosophy of the Act. (M. Holquist and V. Liapunov, eds.). Austin: University of Texas.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bühler, Karl. 1934. Sprachtheorie. Die Dahrstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Jena: Fischer.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Callaghan, Tara, Moll, Henrike, Rakoczy, Hannes, Warneken, Felix, Liszkowski, Ulf, Behne, Tanya and Tomasello, Michael. 2011. Early Social Cognition in Three Cultural Contexts. Boston/Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chafe, Wallace L. 1974. “Language and consciousness.” Language 50 (1): 111–133. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chafe, Wallace L. 1994. Discourse, consciousness, and time: the flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chomsky, Noam. 2005. “Three Factors in Language Design.” LinguisticInquiry 36 (1): 1–22.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Coate, Howard H. J., and Oates, Lynette Frances. 1970. A Grammar of Ngarinjin, Western Australia. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dancygier, Barbara. 2016. “Concluding remarks: Why viewpoint matters.” In Viewpoint and the Fabric of Meaning: Form and Use of Viewpoint Tools across Languages and Modalities, Barbara Dancygier, Wei-lun Lu, and Arie Verhagen (eds.), 281–288. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dor, Daniel. 2015. The Instruction of Imagination: Language as a Social Communication Technology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dor, Daniel. 2016. “From experience to imagination: Language and its evolution as a social communication technology.” Journal Neurolinguistics.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Du Bois, John W. 1987. “The Discourse Basis of Ergativity.” Language 63 (4): 805–855. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Du Bois, John W. 2007. “The stance triangle.” In Stancetaking in Discourse. Robert Englebretson (ed), 139–182. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ferrara, Lindsay, and Hodge, Gabrielle. 2018. “Language as Description, Indication, and Depiction.” Frontiers Psychology 9. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fox, Barbara. 2007. Principles shaping grammatical practices: an exploration. Discourse Studies 9 (3): 299–318.. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fried, Mirjam and Östman, Jan-Ola. 2004. “Construction Grammar: A thumbnail sketch.” In Construction Grammar in a Cross-Language Perspective. Mirjam Fried and Jan-Ola Östman (eds.), 11–86. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: a Construction Grammar approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldberg, Adele E. 2009. “The nature of generalization in language.” CognitiveLinguistics 20 (1): 93–127.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1985. An introduction to functional grammar. London: Arnold.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Halliday, Michael A. K. and Hasan, Ruqaia. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hengeveld, Kees and Mackenzie, J. Lachlan. 2008. Functional Discourse Grammar: A typologically-based theory of language structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 1998. “Documentary and descriptive linguistics.” Journal Linguistics 36: 161–195.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hoffmann, Thomas and Trousdale, Graeme (eds.). 2013. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jakobson, Roman. 1980. The framework of language. Michigan: Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studies.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kaminski, Juliane, Call, Josep and Tomasello, Michael. 2008. “Chimpanzees know what others know, but not what they believe.” Cognition 109: 224–234. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kibrik, Andrej A. 2011. Reference in Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, Ronald W. 2009. “Cognitive (Construction) Grammar.” CognitiveLinguistics 20 (1): 167–176.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
McGregor, William B. 2002. Verb classification in Australian languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
McGregor, William B. 2013. “Optionality in grammar and language use.” Linguistics 51 (6): 1147–1204. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
McGregor, William B. and Rumsey, Alan. 2009. Worrorran Revisited. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mercier, Hugo and Sperber, Dan. 2011. “Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory.” Behavioral brain sciences 34: 57–111. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mercier, Hugo and Sperber, Dan. 2017. The Enigma of Reason. Harvard: Harvard University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Merrell, Floyd. 2001. “Charles Sanders Peirce’s Concept of the Sign.” In The Routledge Companion to Semiotics and Linguistics, Paul Cobley (ed), 28–39. London/New York: Routledge.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Moll, Henrike, Carpenter, Malinda and Tomasello, Michael. 2014. “Two- and 3-Year-Olds Know What Others Have and Have Not Heard.” Journal Cognition Development, 15 (1): 12–21. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Nichols, Joanna. 1986. Head-marking and dependent-marking languages. Language 62: 524–541. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Roberts, John R. 1987. Amele. London: Croom Helm.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rosch, Eleanor. 1975. “Cognitive representations of semantic categories.” Journal Experimental Psychology: General 104: 192–233. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rosenbaum, R. Shayna, Stuss, Donald T., Levine, Brian, and Tulving, Endel. 2007. “Theory of mind is independent of episodic memory.” Science 318: 1257. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rumsey, Alan. 1982. An Intra-Sentence Grammar of Ungarinjin, North-Western Australia. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. “Hierarchy of features and ergativity.” In Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages. Robert M. W. Dixon (ed), 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Spronck, Stef. 2020. Grammar and levels of addressivity: Exploring Ungarinyin engagement. Open Linguistics. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Spronck, Stef. 2015. Reported speech in Ungarinyin: grammar and social cognition in a language of the Kimberley region, Western Australia. The Australian National University. Available at [URL]
Stirling, Lesley. 1993. Switch-reference and discourse representation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Harvard: Harvard University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tomasello, Michael. 2014a. A Natural History of Human Thinking. Cambridge/London: Harvard University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tomasello, Michael. 2014b. “The ultra-social animal.” European Journal Social Psychology 44: 187–194. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2010. “(Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment.” In Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization, Kristine Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte and Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), 29–71. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Van Valin, Jr. Robert D. and LaPolla, Randi J. 1997. Syntax: structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Claire Bowern
2023.
The Oxford Guide to Australian Languages,
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 june 2024. 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.