Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatics & Cognition
Vol. 26:2/3 (2019) ► pp.414–446

Meaning construction in interactive academic talk

A conversation-analytic approach to mental spaces

| Shanghai Maritime University, China
Mental spaces are conceptual structures for meaning representation and interpretation in discourse. They are pervasive in everyday language as an important aspect of ongoing language processing and meaning construction (Hamawand 2016). The application of Mental Space Theory (MST) to the analysis of real, attested examples of discourse (e.g. Conversation Analysis) has been undertaken through productive exchanges (see Hougaard 2004, 2005, Oakley & Hougaard 2008, Oakley 2009). The integration links external, observable language behaviors to internal, conceptual mental operations (Williams 2008), revealing that the cognitive dimensions of discursive approaches are essential to the analysis of talk-in-interaction. This study focuses on the technical aspects of Conversation Analysis in interactive academic talk and shows how MST can provide a subsequent framework for making plausible accounts of the meaning construction process underlying typical conversational moves in this unique talk setting. The data analyses show that the accessibility and selectivity of cognitive mappings contribute to shaping the structurality of meaning representation, transmission, and interpretation. The findings have implications for understanding and characterizing how co-constructed meaning enters into individual and collective conceptualization in higher education communication.
Keywords: meaning construction, Conversation Analysis, Mental Space Theory
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.A discursive view of mental spaces
  • 3.The cognitive dimension of Conversation Analysis
  • 4.The study: Data and methods
  • 5.Findings and discussion
    • 5.1Prosodic triggers and presupposition mappings
    • 5.2Conditional relevance and space building movement
    • 5.3Overlapping talk and the order of space building
    • 5.4Alternate framings and space connection strategies
  • 6.Concluding remarks
  • Notes
  • References
  • Key publications of author
Published online: 12 February 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.19019.pan
References (110)
References
Ackermann, Edith. 1995. Construction and transfer of meaning through form. In Leslie P. Steffe & Jerry Gale (eds.), Constructivism in education, 341–354. NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Allen, Graham. 2011. Intertextuality. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Allwood, Jens. 2003. Meaning potentials and context: Some consequences for the analysis of variation in meaning. In Hubert Cuyckens, René Dirven & John Taylor (eds.), Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics, 29–66. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, J. Maxwell & John Heritage (eds.). 1984. Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Barsalou, Lawrence W. 1987. The instability of graded structure: Implications for the nature of concepts. In Ulrich Neisser (ed.), Concepts and conceptual development, 101–140. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Basturkman, Helen. 2002. Negotiating meaning in seminar-type discussion and EAP. English for Specific Purposes 21(3). 233–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benwell, Bethan & Elizabeth Stokoe. 2002. Constructing discussion tasks in university tutorials: Shifting dynamics and identities. Discourse Studies 4(4). 429–453. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brandt, Line. 2008. A semiotic approach to fictive interaction as a representational strategy in communicative meaning construction. In Todd Oakley & Anders Hougaard (eds.), Mental spaces in discourse and interaction, 109–148. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brandt, Per Aage. 2005. Mental space and cognitive semantics: A critical comment. Journal of Pragmatics 37(10). 1578–1594. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cazden, Courtney. 1986. Classroom discourse. In Merldin C. Wittrock (ed.), Handbook of research on teaching, 432–463. New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
Cienki, Alan. 2007. Frames, Idealized Cognitive Modes and Domains. In Dirk Geeraerts & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, 170–187. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cobb, Paul & Erna Yackel. 1996. Constructivist, emergent, and sociocultural perspectives in the context of developmental research. Educational Psychologist 3(4). 175–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coulson, Seana. 2000. Semantic leaps: Frame-shifting and conceptual blending in meaning construction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 2006. Constructing meaning. Metaphor and Symbol 21(4). 245–266. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coulson, Seana & Todd Oakley. 2001. Blending basics. Cognitive Linguistics 11(3–4). 175–196.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 1992. Contextualizing discourse: The prosody of interactive repair. In Peter Auer & Also Di Luzio (eds.), The contextualization of language, 337–364. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2000. Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf. 2012. How does ‘cognition’ matter to the analysis of talk-in-interaction?. Language Sciences 34(6). 746–767. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dinsmore, John. 1991. Partitioned representations: A study in mental representation, language understanding and linguistic structure. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drew, Paul & John Heritage. 1992. Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan. 2006. Lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning-construction. Cognitive Linguistics 17(4). 491–534. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1994. Mental spaces: aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997. Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Mental Spaces. In Dirk Geeraerts & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, 351–376. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles & Mark Turner. 2002. The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
. 2006. Mental Spaces. In Dirk Geeraerts (ed.), Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings, 303–371. Berlin: Monton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1982. Frame Semantics. In Dirk Geeraerts (ed.), Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings, 373–400. Berlin; New York: Monton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fuller, Janet M. 2003. The influence of speaker roles on discourse marker use. Journal of Pragmatics 35(1). 23–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gardner, Rod. 2007. The Right connections: Acknowledging epistemic progression in talk. Language in Society 361. 319–341.Google Scholar
Gärdenfors, Peter. 2014. The geometry of meaning: Semantics based on conceptual spaces. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. Studies in ethnomethodology. New York: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
. 2002. Ethnomethodology’s program. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Gash, Hugh. 2015. Knowledge construction: A paradigm shift. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 2015(143). 5–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gass, Susan. 1997. Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate.Google Scholar
Gergen, Kenneth J. 1985. The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. American Psychologist 40(3). 266–275. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles. 2000. Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 32(10). 1489–1522. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Graesser, Arthur C. 2006. Views from a cognitive scientist: Cognitive representations underlying discourse are sometimes social. Discourse Studies 8(1). 59–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gumperz, John J. 1992a. Contextualization and understanding. In Alessandro Duranti & Charles Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon, 229–252. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1992b. Contextualization revisited. In Peter Auer & Aldo Di Luzio (eds.), The contextualization of language, 39–53. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hamawand, Zeki. 2016. Semantics: A cognitive account of linguistic meaning. Sheffield, UK: Equinox Publishing.Google Scholar
Hardin, Curtis D. & E. Tory Higgins. 1996. Shared reality: How social verification makes the subjective objective. In Richard M. Sorrentino & E. Tory Higgins (eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition, vol. 31, 28–84. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Hayano, Kaoru. 2011. Claiming epistemic primacy: yo-marked assessments in Japanese. In Tanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada, & Jakob Steensig (eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation, 58–81. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hata, Kazuki. 2016. Contrast-terminal: The sequential placement of trail-off but in extensive courses of action. Journal of Pragmatics 1011. 138–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heller, Vivien. 2015. Academic discourse practices in action: Invoking discursive norms in mathematics and language lessons. Linguistics and Education 311. 187–206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John. 1984. Garfinkle and ethomothodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
. 2011. Territories of knowledge, territories of experience: Empathic moments in interaction. In Tanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada, & Jakob Steensig (eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation, 159–183. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(1). 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Action formation and its epistemic (and other) backgrounds. Discourse Studies 15(5). 551–578. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Cognition in discourse. In Hedwig te Molder & Jonathan Potter (eds.), Conversation and cognition, 184–202. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, John & Geoffrey Raymond. 2012. Navigating epistemic landscapes: Acquiescence, agency and resistance in response to polar questions. In de Ruiter Jan P. (ed.). Questions: formal, functional and interactional perspectives, 179–192. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Robert. 2005. A cognitive agnostic in conversation analysis: When do strategies affect spoken interaction? In Hedwig te Molder & Jonathan Potter (eds.), Conversation and cognition, 134–158. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hougaard, Anders. 2004. ‘How’re we doing’: An interactional approach to cognitive processes of online meaning construction. Unpublished PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
. 2005. Conceptual disintegration and blending in interactional sequences: A discussion of new phenomena, processes vs. products, and methodology. Journal of Pragmatics 37(10). 1653–1685. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Compression in interaction. In Todd Oakley & Anders Hougaard (eds.), Mental spaces in discourse and interaction, 179–208. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hougaard, Anders & Todd Oakley. 2008. Mental spaces and discourse analysis. In Todd Oakley, & Anders Hougaard (eds.), Mental spaces in discourse and interaction, 1–26. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hougaard, G. Rasmus. 2008. ‘Mental spaces’ and ‘blending’ in discourse and interaction: A response. In Todd Oakley & Anders Hougaard (eds.), Mental spaces in discourse and interaction, 247–250. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1990. The speech event and the functions of language. In Roman Jakobson, Linda R. Waugh and Monique Monville-Burston (eds.), On Language, 69–79. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 1986. Notes on ‘latency’ in overlap onset. Human Studies 9(2). 153–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Gene H. Lerner (ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the first generation, 13–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kamio, Akio. 1997. Territory of information. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaufer, David S. & Kathleen Carley. 1993. Communication at a distance: The influence of print on sociocultural organization and change. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Kern, Friederike & Margret Selting. 2012. Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics. In Carol A. Chapelle (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Last retrived from [URL]. DOI logo. (9 April, 2019)
Lantolf, James P. (ed.). 2000. Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2003. Contextualizing ‘contextualization cues’. In Susan L. Eerdmans, Carlo L. Prevignano & Paul J. Thibault (eds.), Language and interaction: Discussions with John J. Gumperz, 31–39. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liddicoat, Anthony J. 2007. An introduction to Conversation Analysis. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Maynard, Douglas W. 2003. Bad news, good news: Conversational order in everyday talk and clinical settings. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, Michael. 2003. Talking back: ‘Small’ interactional response tokens in everyday conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 36(1). 33–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Minsky, Marvin. 1975. A framework for representing knowledge. In Patrick Henry Winston (ed.), The Psychology of Computer Vision, 211–277. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Miranda, Shaila M. & Carol Saunders. 2003. The social construction of meaning: An alternative perspective on information sharing. Information System Research 14(1). 87–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oakley, Todd. 2009. From attention to meaning: Explorations in semiotics, linguistics, and rhetoric. Berlin: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oakley, Todd & Anders Hougaard (eds.) 2008. Mental spaces in discourse and interaction. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ogden, Charles Kay & Ivor Armstrong Richards. 1989. The meaning of meaning. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers.Google Scholar
Orr, Mary. 2003. Intertextuality: Debates and contexts. Malden, USA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Pan, Yuling. 2012. Interactional Linguistics as a research perspective. In Carol A. Chapelle (ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Last retrieved from [URL]. DOI logo. (9 April, 2019.)
Parrill, Fey & Eve Sweetser. 2004. What we mean by meaning: Conceptual integration in gesture analysis and transcription. Gesture 4(2). 197–219. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pascual, Esther. 2008. Fictive interaction blends in everyday life and courtroom settings. In Todd Oakley & Anders Hougaard (eds.), Mental spaces in discourse and interaction, 79–108. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pena-Shaff, Judith B. & Craig Nicholls. 2004. Analyzing student interactions and meaning construction in computer bulletin board discussions. Computer and Education 42(3). 243–265. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pica, Teresa. 1994. Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second language learning conditions, processes and outcomes? Language Learning 44(3). 493–527. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Potter, Jonathan & Hedwig te Molder. 2005. Conversation and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey & John Heritage. 2006. The epistemics of social relations: Owning grandchildren. Language in Society 35(5). 677–705. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rommetveit, Ragnar. 1992. Outlines of a dialogically based social-cognitive approach to human cognition and communication. In Astri Heen Wold (ed.), The dialogical alternative: Towards a theory of language and mind, 19–44. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. 1984. On doing ‘being ordinary’. In J. Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage (eds.), Structures of social interaction, 413–429. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Gail Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50(4). 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1972. Notes on a conversational practice: Formulating place. In David Sudnow (ed.), Studies in social interaction, 75–119. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
1992. In another context. In Alessandro Duranti & Charles Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon, 191–227. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1996. Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Interaction and grammar, 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. & Harvey Sacks. 1973. Opening up closings. Semiotica 8(4). 289–327. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schourup, Lawrence. 1999. Discourse markers: Tutorial overview. Lingua 107(3–4). 227–265. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwitalla, Johannes. 1992. Comments on Margret Selting: Intonation as a contextualization device. In Peter Auer & Aldo Di Luzio (eds.), The contextualization of language, 259–271. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scott, Mike. 1999. WordSmith tools help manual, version 3.0. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Selting, Margret. 1992. Intonation as a contextualization device: Case studies on the role of prosody, especially intonation, in contextualizing story telling in conversation. In Peter Auer & Aldo Di Luzio (eds.), The contextualization of language, 233–258. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, Jack. 2005. Talk and practical epistemology: The social life of knowledge in a Caribbean community. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, Sara W. & Andreas H. Jucker. 1998. Interactive aspects of reference assignment in conversations. Pragmatics & Cognition 6(1–2). 153–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 1995. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stahl, Gerry. 2006. Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, Lorenza Mondada & Jakob Steensig. 2011. Knowledge, morality and affiliation in social interaction. In Tanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada & Jakob Steensig (eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation, 3–26. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stubbs, Michael. 2010. Three concepts of keywords. In Marina Bondi & Mike Scott (eds.), Keyness in texts, 21–42. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, Eve & Gilles Fauconnier. 1996. Cognitive links and domains: Basic aspects of Mental Space Theory. In Gilles Fauconnier & Eve Sweetser (eds.), Spaces, worlds and grammars, 1–28. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Terasaki, Alene K. 2004. Pre-announcement sequences in conversation. In Gene H. Lerner (ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the first generation, 171–223. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turner, Mark. 2001. Cognitive dimensions of social science: The way we think about politics, economics, law, and society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, Andrea & Vyvyan Evans. 2001. Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: The case of ‘over’. Language 77(4). 724–765. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Boxtel, Carla, Jos van der Linden & Gellof Kanselaar. 2000. Collaborative learning tasks and the elaboration of conceptual knowledge. Learning and Instruction 10(4). 311–330. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walsh, Steve. 2014. Newcastle University Corpus of Academic Spoken English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, Robert F. 2008. Guided conceptualization: Mental spaces in institutional discourse. In Todd Oakley & Anders Hougaard (eds.), Mental spaces in discourse and interaction, 209–234. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yin, Robert K. 2014. Case study research: Design and methods. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Yin, Robert K. & Darnella Davis. 2007. Adding new dimensions to case study evaluations: The case of evaluating comprehensive reforms. In George Julnes & Debra J. Rog (eds.), Informing federal policies for evaluation methodology, 75–93. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Key publications of author
Pan, Yun. 2017. Raising trainee translators’ critical language awareness in news translation. Asia Pacific Translation and Intercultural Studies 21. 160–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. Corpus linguistics approaches to trainee translators’ framing practice in news translation. The International Journal for Translation and Interpreting Research 12(1). 90–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Bredikhin, Sergey, Vladislav Babayants, Iuliia Pelevina, D. Rudoy, A. Olshevskaya & N. Ugrekhelidze
2021. A comprehensive cognitive-perceptual model of analysis for contextually determined components of a conceptualized term. E3S Web of Conferences 273 ► pp. 11038 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 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.