Cover not available
Article published In:
Cognitive Perspectives on Political Discourse
Edited by Pascal Fischer and Christoph Schubert
[Journal of Language and Politics 13:2] 2014
► pp. 336–363

Denotational boundary disputes in political discourse

‘Defining the definition of marriage’

 | University of Flensburg |
The cognitive semantic analysis of denotational incongruencies by means of comparative investigations of structural field patterns (cf. Jäkel 2001, 2003, 2010) can also be put to use in the investigation of certain kinds of contested concepts (Lakoff 1993), namely cases in which the field patterns themselves are under dispute. The case to be analysed is that of marriage, a cultural concept that has recently come under dispute in the socio-political discourse of Western countries. Competing cultural models (cf. Lakoff 1987) to be compared in this context include the traditional/conservative model as well as different versions of a more tolerant model and a liberal/progressive model. The analysis will focus on authentic language data from the United States, Canada, Great Britain, and Germany, supplemented by a diachronic comparison of dictionary definitions as well as the results of a survey done with young German informants.
Keywords: denotational incongruency, contested concepts, denotational boundaries, lexical field patterns, marriage, same-sex marriage, cultural cognitive models, competing construals, alternative classifications, structural field semantics
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction: The contested concept of marriage
  • 2.Discourse on marriage: Some recent English evidence
  • 3.Defining marriage: Some diachronic evidence
  • 4.Competing construals of marriage
  • 5.Defining marriage/Ehe: Results from a survey
  • 6.More discourse on marriage: Sir Elton John’s wedding and its media coverage in English and German
    • 6.1Discourse from the television coverage
    • 6.2Discourse from the press coverage
  • 7.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 29 August 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.13.2.07jak
References (18)
References
Chilton, Paul. 2004. Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London/New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1982. “Frame Semantics.” In Linguistics in the Morning Calm, ed. by The Linguistic Society of Korea, 111–137. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Fromkin, Victoria, Robert Rodman, and Nina Hyams. 20037. An Introduction to Language. Boston, Mass.: Thomson/Heinle.Google Scholar
Gallie, Walter Bryce. 1956. “Essentially Contested Concepts.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 561: 167–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1964. Philosophy and the Historical Understanding. London: Chatto & Windus.Google Scholar
Goatly, Andrew. 2007. Washing the Brain: Metaphor and Hidden Ideology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jäkel, Olaf. 2001. “Denotational Incongruencies: A Very Short Introduction and Typology.” In Echoes in a Mirror: The English Institute after 125 Years (HSAA, vol. 9), ed. by Wolf Kindermann, and Gisela Hermann-Brennecke, 156–169. Münster: LIT.Google Scholar
. 2003. “‘Morning, Noon and Night’: Denotational Incongruencies between English and German.” In Text Transfer: Metonymy and Metaphor, Translation and Expert-Lay Communication, ed. by Cornelia Zelinsky-Wibbelt, 159–178. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2010. “Questions of Life and Death: Denotational Boundary Disputes.” In Cognitive Foundations of Linguistic Usage Patterns, ed. by Hans-Jörg Schmid, and Susanne Handl, 33–61. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. forthcoming. Denotational Incongruencies and Contested Concepts: Applied Comparative and Intercultural Semantics in English and German. Unpublished manuscript, Flensburg University.
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1988. “Cognitive Semantics.” In Meaning and Mental Representations, ed. by Umberto Eco, Marco Santambrogio, and Patrizia Violi, 119–154. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
. 1993. “Cognitive Cultural Theory.” Plenary Presentation at the 3rd International Cognitive Linguistics Conference , July 18–23, 1993, Leuven.
Lehrer, Adrienne. 1974. Semantic Fields and Lexical Structure. Amsterdam/London: North-Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Lehrer, Adrienne, and Eva Feder Kittay (eds). 1992. Frames, Fields and Contrasts: New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1977 [1987]. Semantics, Vol. I1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 1995. Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction. Cambridge/New York/Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trier, Jost. 1931. Der deutsche Wortschatz im Sinnbezirk des Verstandes: Die Geschichte eines sprachlichen Feldes. Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universitätsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Paterson, Laura L. & Laura Coffey-Glover
2018. Discourses of marriage in same-sex marriage debates in the UK press 2011–2014. Journal of Language and Sexuality 7:2 ► pp. 175 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 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.