Part of
Language Structure and Environment: Social, cultural, and natural factorsEdited by Rik De Busser and Randy J. LaPolla
[Cognitive Linguistic Studies in Cultural Contexts 6] 2015
► pp. 31–44
Edited by Rik De Busser and Randy J. LaPolla
[Cognitive Linguistic Studies in Cultural Contexts 6] 2015
► pp. 31–44
Chapter 2. On the logical necessity of a cultural and cognitive connection for the origin of all aspects of linguistic structure
This chapter presents a view of communication not as coding and decoding, but as ostension and inference, that is, one person doing something to show the intention to communicate, and then another person using abductive inference to infer the reason for the person’s ostensive act, creating a context of interpretation in which the communicator’s ostensive act “makes sense”, and thereby inferring the communicative and informative intention of the person. Language is not necessary for communication in this view, but develops as speakers use linguistic patterns over and over again to constrain the addressee’s creation of the context of interpretation. Speakers choose which aspects to constrain the interpretation of, and language forms conventionalize from frequent repetition. As constraining the interpretation requires more effort than not constraining it in that way, it must be important to the speakers to constrain that particular aspect of the meaning, otherwise they would not put in the extra effort. Logically, then, the forms that do conventionalize must have been motivated by the cognition and culture of the speakers of the language when they conventionalized, even though over time the motivation is often lost and the form continues to be used only due to convention and habit.
References (34)
Claiborne, R. (2001). Loose cannons, red herrings, and other lost metaphors. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Deutscher, G. (2002). On the misuse of the notion of `abduction' in linguistics. Journal of Linguistics 38: 469–485. 
Dryer, M.S. (2006). Descriptive theories, explanatory theories, and basic linguistic theory. In F.K. Ameka, A.C. Dench, & N. Evans (Eds.), Catching language: The standing challenge of grammar writing (pp. 207–234). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ehrlich, E.H. (1985). Amo, Amas, Amat, and more: How to use Latin to your own advantage and to the astonishment of others. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Enfield, N.J. (2002). Ethnosyntax: Explorations in grammar and culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Givón, T. (1989). Mind, code, and context: Essays in pragmatics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Green, G.M. (1996). Pragmatics and natural language understanding, Second Edition (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.
Grice, H.P. (1957). Meaning. The Philosophical Review, 66(3), 377–388.
. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J.L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, Volume 3: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.
. (1978). Further notes on logic and conversation. In P. Cole (Ed.), Pragmatics (pp. 113–128). New York, NY: Academic Press.
. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gumperz, J.J. (1977). Sociocultural knowledge in conversational inference. In M. Saville-Troike (Ed.), Linguistics and Anthropology, Georgetown university round table on languages and linguistics 1977 (pp. 191–211). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
. (1989). Contextualization cues and metapragmatics: The retrieval of cultural knowledge. In C. Wiltshire, B. Music, & R. Graczyk (Eds.), Chicago linguistic society 25: Papers from the Parasession on language in context. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.
. (1992a). Contextualization and understanding. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context (pp. 229–252). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
. (1992b). Contextualization revisited. In P. Auer & A. di Luzio (Eds.), The contextualization of language (pp. 39–53). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Harman, G.H. (1965). The inference to the best explanation. The Philosophical Review, 74(1), 88–95.
Hopper, P. (1987). Emergent Grammar. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 139–157.
Hopper, P.J. (1991). On some principles of grammaticization. In E.C. Traugott & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, Volume 1 (pp. 17–36). Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Hopper, P. (2011). Emergent Grammar and temporality in interactional linguistics. In P. Auer & S. Pfänder (eds.), Constructions: Emerging and emergent, (pp. 22–44). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
. (2012). Emergent grammar. In J.P. Gee & M. Handford (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 301–314). London: Routledge.
Josephson, J., & Josephson, S. (1996). Abductive inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Keller, R. (1994). On language change: The invisible hand in language. (B. Nerlich, Trans.). London: Routledge.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, IL: University Of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
LaPolla, R.J. (2003). Why languages differ: Variation in the conventionalization of constraints on inference. In D. Bradley, R.J. LaPolla, B. Michailovsky, & G. Thurgood (Eds.), Language variation: Papers on Variation and Change in the Sinosphere and in the Indosphere in Honour of James A. Matisoff (pp. 113–144). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
. (2009). Causes and effects of substratum, superstratum and adstratum influence, with reference to Tibeto-Burman languages. In Yasuhiko Nagano (ed.), Issues in Tibeto-Burman historical linguistics (
Senri Ethnological Studies 75
), (pp. 227–237). Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology.
Levinson, S.C. (1995). Interactional biases in human thinking. In E.N. Goody (Ed.), Social intelligence and interaction (pp. 221–260). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lipton, Peter. (1993). Inference to the Best Explanation. London: Routledge.
Majid, A., Bowerman, M., Kita, S., Haun, D.B.M., & Levinson, S.C. (2004). Can language restructure cognition? The case for space. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(3), 108–114.
Peirce, C.S. (1940). Abduction and induction. In J. Buchler (Ed.), Philosophical writings of Peirce (pp. 150–156). New York, NY: Routledge.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1996). Relevance: Communication and cognition, Second Edition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Whorf, B.L. (1956). Linguistics as an exact science. In J.B. Carroll (Ed.), Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Xu, J., Gannon, P.J., Emmorey, K., Smith, J.F., & Braun, A.R. (2009). Symbolic gestures and spoken language are processed by a common neural system. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(49), 20664–20669.
Cited by (8)
Cited by eight other publications
Muru, Cristina
2023. Grammatical category versus comparative concept in missionary grammars of Tamil (16th-18th centuries): the description of the relative clause. Language & History 66:2 ► pp. 145 ff. 
Kolodny, Oren & Shimon Edelman
2018. The evolution of the capacity for language: the ecological context and adaptive value of a process of cognitive hijacking. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 373:1743 ► pp. 20170052 ff.
Feltgen, Q., B. Fagard & J.-P. Nadal
2017. Frequency patterns of semantic change: corpus-based evidence of a near-critical dynamics in language change. Royal Society Open Science 4:11 ► pp. 170830 ff.
Bernárdez, Enrique
2016. From butchers and surgeons to the linguistic method. In Exploring Discourse Strategies in Social and Cognitive Interaction [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 262], ► pp. 21 ff.
Bernárdez, Enrique
2017. Evidentiality—A Cultural Interpretation. In Advances in Cultural Linguistics [Cultural Linguistics, ], ► pp. 433 ff.
LaPolla, Randy J.
2016. Review of Evans (2014): The language myth: Why language is not an instinct. Studies in Language 40:1 ► pp. 235 ff.
LaPolla, Randy J.
2017. Noun-modifying clause constructions in Sino-Tibetan languages. In Noun-Modifying Clause Constructions in Languages of Eurasia [Typological Studies in Language, 116], ► pp. 91 ff.
LaPolla, Randy J.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 september 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.