Metapragmatic markers and the instantiation of pragmatic frames: A cognitive-linguistic approach to the problem of current discourse
-
Oliver Spiess
Abstract
Reference to current discourse is often cited as a definitional criterion for classifying linguistic units as metapragmatic. However, there is no consensus in research on the precise meaning and limits of this criterion. In this paper, a cognitive-linguistic perspective is adopted to address this issue by focusing on how interactants conceptualize discourse. A synthesis of Langacker’s (2001) current-discourse-space model (CDS model) and the notion of pragmatic frames is used to analyze metapragmatic practices in a television discussion. The analytical annotation process shows that metapragmatic markers (MPMs) evoke specific kinds of frame structures including the instantiation of pragmatic frames. Based on the annotation of the entire transcribed discussion, it will be argued that the visualization of discourse sequences in the CDS model and the examination of the specific frame structures evoked by MPMs contribute to a better understanding of the core of metapragmaticity. The paper concludes with a pilot study that uses quantitative methods to demonstrate the analytical potential of a cognition-centered categorization of MPMs. It is shown that the use of MPMs reflects different interactional roles (i.e., host or discussant) and the conversational strategies used to shape the conceptualization of argumentative discourse to pursue specific interactional goals.
Acknowledgments
Mirjam Weder made the realization of this paper possible by upholding the significance of its key ideas and providing valuable comments on earlier versions. I would therefore like to thank her for her efforts.
References
Abstimmungs-Arena zum Gesetz über die Stempelabgaben [TV show]. 2022. Schweizer Radio und Fernsehen, Arena. https://www.srf.ch/play/tv/arena/video/abstimmungs-arena-zum-gesetz-ueber-die-stempelabgaben?urn=urn:srf:video:1014e396-06d6-4dad-96c9-3c6e8a0458de. (17 January, 2022.)Search in Google Scholar
Ädel, Annelie. 2006. Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English (Studies in Corpus Linguistics 24). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.24.Search in Google Scholar
Barsalou, Lawrence W. 1992. Frames, concepts, and conceptual fields. In Adrienne Lehrer & Eva F. Kittay (eds.), Frames, fields, and contrasts: New essays in semantic and lexical organization, 21–74. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203062821.Search in Google Scholar
Bonferroni, Carlo E. 1936. Teoria statistica delle classi e calcolo delle probabilità (Pubblicazioni del R. Istituto Superiore di Scienze Economiche e Commerciali di Firenze 8). Firenze: Seeber.Search in Google Scholar
Busse, Dietrich. 2012. Frame-Semantik: Ein Kompendium. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110269451.Search in Google Scholar
Caffi, Claudia. 2006. Metapragmatics. In Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of language & linguistics, 82–88. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/00317-5Search in Google Scholar
Caffi, Claudia. 2016. Revisiting metapragmatics: “What are we talking about?”. In Keith Allan, Alessandro Capone & Istvan Kecskes (eds.), Pragmemes and theories of language use (Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology 9), 799–821. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43491-9_40.Search in Google Scholar
ChW. 2001. Communication_response [database entry]. In FrameNet. https://framenet2.icsi.berkeley.edu/fnReports/data/frameIndex.xml?frame=Communication_response. (4 December, 2023.)Search in Google Scholar
ChW. 2001. Questioning [database entry]. In FrameNet. https://framenet2.icsi.berkeley.edu/fnReports/data/frameIndex.xml?frame=Questioning. (27 April, 2022.)Search in Google Scholar
Cienki, Alan. 2015. Spoken language usage events. Language & Cognition 7. 499–514. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2015.20.Search in Google Scholar
Cook, Guy. 1989. Discourse in language teaching: A scheme for teacher education. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Czulo, Oliver; Alexander Ziem & Tiago T. Torrent. 2020. Beyond lexical semantics: Notes on pragmatic frames. Proceedings of the International FrameNet Workshop 2020: Towards a Global, Multilingual FrameNet. 1–7. Marseille: European Language Resources Association.Search in Google Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara & Eve Sweetser. 2005. Mental spaces in grammar: Conditional constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 108). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486760.Search in Google Scholar
Dijk, Teun A. van. 1997. The study of discourse. In Teun A. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as structure and process: Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction, vol. 1, 1–34. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446221884.10.4135/9781446221884Search in Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 1992. Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.Search in Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1992. Sens potentiel: Grammaire et discours. In Walter de Mulder, Franc Schuerewegen & Liliane Tasmowski (eds.), Enunciation et parti pris, 159–172. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Search in Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1994. Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511624582.Search in Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1997. Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139174220.Search in Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles. 1982. Frame semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm, 111–138. Seoul: Hanshin.Search in Google Scholar
Frame: Kommunikativer_Kontext [database entry]. N.d. In FrameNet-Konstruktikon des Deutschen. https://gsw.phil.hhu.de/framenet/frame?id=2267. (30 November, 2023.)Search in Google Scholar
FrameNet. 2024. [website].https://framenet.icsi.berkeley.edu. (20 April, 2024.)Search in Google Scholar
FrameNet-Konstruktikon des Deutschen. 2024. [website]. https://framenet-constructicon.hhu.de. (20 April, 2024.)Search in Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1995. Coherence in text vs. coherence in mind. In Morton Ann Gernsbacher & Talmy Givón (eds.), Coherence in spontaneous text (Typological Studies in Language 31), 59–116. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.31.04giv.Search in Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles. 2006. Interactive footing. In Elizabeth Holt & Rebecca Clift (eds.), Reporting talk: Reported speech in interaction (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistic 24), 16–46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486654.003.Search in Google Scholar
Hart, Christopher. 2019. Introduction. In Christopher Hart (ed.), Cognitive linguistic approaches to text and discourse: From poetics to politics, 1–19. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.10.1515/9781474450003-003Search in Google Scholar
Hutchby, Ian. 2001. Technologies, texts and affordances. Sociology 35(2). 441–456. https://doi.org/10.1177/S0038038501000219.Search in Google Scholar
Hübler, Axel & Wolfram Bublitz. 2007. Introducing metapragmatics in use. In Wolfram Bublitz & Axel Hübler (eds.), Metapragmatics in use (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 165), 1–26. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.165.02hub.Search in Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2005. Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing (Continuum Discourse Series). London & New York: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2017. Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics 113. 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.03.007.Search in Google Scholar
Jaworski, Adam & Nikolas Coupland. 2006. Introduction: Perspectives on discourse analysis. In Adam Jaworski & Nikolas Coupland (eds.), The discourse reader, 2nd edn., 1–37. Abingdon & New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
JKR. 2001. Instance [database entry]. In FrameNet. https://framenet2.icsi.berkeley.edu/fnReports/data/frameIndex.xml?frame=Instance (4 December, 2023.)Search in Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2001. Discourse in cognitive grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 12(2). 143–188. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.12.2.143.Search in Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.003.0001.Search in Google Scholar
Lanwer, Jens P. 2017. Metapragmatic appositions in German talk-in-interaction. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 5(1). 9–24. https://doi.org/10.1515/gcla-2017-0002.Search in Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1988. Putting linguistics on a proper footing: Explorations in Goffman’s concepts of participation. In Paul Drew & Anthony Wootton (eds.), Erving Goffman: Exploring the interaction order, 161–227. Oxford: Polity Press.Search in Google Scholar
Liu, Ping & Yongping Ran. 2016. Creating meso-contexts: The functions of metapragmatic expressions in argumentative TV talk shows. Intercultural Pragmatics 13(2). 283–307. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2016-0011.Search in Google Scholar
Lucy, John A. 1993. Reflexive language and the human disciplines. In: John A. Lucy (ed.), Reflexive language: Reported speech and metapragmatics, 9–32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621031.Search in Google Scholar
Mills, Sara. 1997. Discourse. London & New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
MJE. 2002. Prevarication [database entry]. In FrameNet. https://framenet2.icsi.berkeley.edu/fnReports/data/frameIndex.xml?frame=Prevarication. (10 May, 2022.)Search in Google Scholar
MJE. 2002. Reasoning [database entry]. In FrameNet. https://framenet2.icsi.berkeley.edu/fnReports/data/frameIndex.xml?frame=Reasoning. (4 December, 2023.)Search in Google Scholar
MJE. 2003. Telling [database entry]. In FrameNet. https://framenet2.icsi.berkeley.edu/fnReports/data/frameIndex.xml?frame=Telling. (6 December, 2023.)Search in Google Scholar
MJE. 2005. Taking_sides [database entry]. In FrameNet. https://framenet2.icsi.berkeley.edu/fnReports/data/frameIndex.xml?frame=Taking_sides. (20 November, 2023.)Search in Google Scholar
MJE. 2007. Earnings_and_losses [database entry]. In FrameNet. https://framenet2.icsi.berkeley.edu/fnReports/data/frameIndex.xml?frame=Earnings_and_losses. (10 May, 2022.)Search in Google Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza. 2001. Conventions for transcribing multimodality [website]. https://www.lorenzamondada.net/multimodal-transcription. (9 May, 2022.)Search in Google Scholar
Pearson, Karl. 1900. On the criterion that a given system of deviations from the probable in the case of a correlated system of variables is such that it can be reasonably supposed to have arisen from random sampling. The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 50(302). 157–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/14786440009463897.Search in Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James & Amber Stubbs. 2012. Natural language annotation for machine learning. Sebastopol: O’Reilly Media.Search in Google Scholar
RStudio Team. 2022. RStudio: Integrated development environment for R. Boston. http://www.rstudio.com.Search in Google Scholar
Ruppenhofer, Josef; Michael Ellsworthis; Miriam R. L. Petruck; Christopher R. Johnson; Collin F. Baker & Jan Scheffczyk. 2016. FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice. https://framenet2.icsi.berkeley.edu/docs/r1.5/book.pdf.Search in 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. https://doi.org/10.2307/412243.Search in Google Scholar
Sanders, Ted; José Sanders & Eve Sweetser. 2009. Causality, cognition and communication: A mental space analysis of subjectivity in causal connectives. In Ted Sanders & Eve Sweetser (eds.), Causal categories in discourse and cognition, 19–60. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton (Cognitive Linguistics Research 44). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110224429.19.Search in Google Scholar
Schmidt, Thomas & Kai Wörner. 2014. EXMARaLDA. In Jacques Durand, Ulrike Gut & Gjert Kristoffersen (eds.), The Oxford handbook on corpus phonology, 402–419. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199571932.013.030.Search in Google Scholar
Selting, Margret; Peter Auer; Dagmar Barth-Weingarten; Jörg Bergmann; Pia Bergmann; Karin Birkner; Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen; Arnulf Deppermann; Peter Gilles; Susanne Günthner; Martin Hartung; Friederike Kern; Christine Mertzlufft; Christian Meyer; Miriam Morek; Frank Oberzaucher; Jörg Peters; Uta Quasthoff; Wilfried Schütte; Anja Stukenbrock & Susanne Uhmann. 2009. Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem (GAT 2). Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 10. 152–183.Search in Google Scholar
Smith, Sara W. & Xiaoping Liang. 2007. Metapragmatic expressions in physics lectures. In Wolfram Bublitz und Axel Hübler (eds.), Metapragmatics in use (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 165), 167–197. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.165.12smi.Search in Google Scholar
Techtmeier, Bärbel. 2001. Form und Funktion von Metakommunikation im Gespräch. In Klaus Brinker, Gerd Antos, Wolfgang Heinemann, Sven F. Sager & Bärbel Techtmeier (eds.), 2. Halbband Text und Gesprächslinguistik: Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung, 1449–1463. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110169188.2.20.1449.Search in Google Scholar
Turner, Mark. 1991. Reading minds: The study of English in the age of cognitive science. Princeton: Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1ddcz96.Search in Google Scholar
Vološinov, Valentin N. 1973. Marxism and the philosophy of language. New York & London: Seminar Press.Search in Google Scholar
Zhang, Man; Weiwei Sun; Huan Peng; Qiong Gan & Bo Yu. 2017. A multidimensional analysis of metadiscourse markers across spoken registers. Journal of Pragmatics 117. 106–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.06.004.Search in Google Scholar
Ziem, Alexander. 2008. Frames und sprachliches Wissen (Sprache und Wissen 2). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110209419.Search in Google Scholar
Ziem, Alexander. 2013. Beyond the sentence: Towards a cognitive-linguistic approach to textual reference. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 1(1). 39–58. https://doi.org/10.1515/gcla-2013-0004.Search in Google Scholar
Zima, Elisabeth. 2013. Cognitive grammar and dialogic syntax: Exploring potential synergies. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 11(1). 36–72. https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.11.1.02zim.Search in Google Scholar
Zima, Elisabeth & Geert Brône. 2015. Cognitive linguistics and interactional discourse: Time to enter into dialogue. Language and Cognition 7(4). 485–498. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2015.19.Search in Google Scholar
Appendix
Transcription conventions (based on Mondada 2001; Selting et al. 2009)
| [ ] | overlapping and simultaneous speech | : | stretching for approx. 0.2–0.5 seconds |
| °h / h° | breathe in/out for approx. 0.2–0.5 seconds | ? | rising intonation |
| (.) | pause for a maximum of 0.2 seconds | , | moderately rising intonation |
| (-) | pause for approx. 0.2–0.5 seconds | – | consistent intonation |
| (--) | pause for approx. 0.5–0.8 seconds | ; | moderately falling intonation |
| (xxx xxx) | unintelligible syllables | . | falling intonation |
| (( )) | other events | = | immediately following the previous utterance |
| ((…)) | omissions | * * | delimitation of an action |
| akZENT | primary stress | *--> | action continues across subsequent lines |
| akzEnt | secondary stress | -->* | until the same symbol is reached |
| ak!ZENT! | extra strong stress | -->> | action continues after the excerpt’s end |
©2024 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Editorial
- Jetzt hab ich voll die Panik: Prototype effects of NP-external intensifiers in German
- Metapragmatic markers and the instantiation of pragmatic frames: A cognitive-linguistic approach to the problem of current discourse
- Linguistic paradigms as cognitive entities: A domain-general approach
- Partial colexifications reveal directional tendencies in object naming
- The interplay of conceptualization and case marking in the directional cases of Udmurt
- Integrating approaches to the role of metaphor in the evolutionary dynamics of language
- Metaphorical meaning dynamics: Identifying patterns in the metaphorical evolution of English words using mathematical modeling techniques
- The language of gratitude: An empirical analysis of acknowledgments in German medical dissertations
- Cross- and multimodal anaphoric references in mystery movies: A cognitive perspective
- Language learners, chess champions, and piano prodigies – insights from research on language contact and expert behavior
- Adaptive language strategies of an older sibling in bilingual German-Russian acquisition: A case study
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Editorial
- Jetzt hab ich voll die Panik: Prototype effects of NP-external intensifiers in German
- Metapragmatic markers and the instantiation of pragmatic frames: A cognitive-linguistic approach to the problem of current discourse
- Linguistic paradigms as cognitive entities: A domain-general approach
- Partial colexifications reveal directional tendencies in object naming
- The interplay of conceptualization and case marking in the directional cases of Udmurt
- Integrating approaches to the role of metaphor in the evolutionary dynamics of language
- Metaphorical meaning dynamics: Identifying patterns in the metaphorical evolution of English words using mathematical modeling techniques
- The language of gratitude: An empirical analysis of acknowledgments in German medical dissertations
- Cross- and multimodal anaphoric references in mystery movies: A cognitive perspective
- Language learners, chess champions, and piano prodigies – insights from research on language contact and expert behavior
- Adaptive language strategies of an older sibling in bilingual German-Russian acquisition: A case study
