Cogprints

Reenactment: An embodied cognition approach to meaning and linguistic content

Sandler, Dr. Sergeiy (2011) Reenactment: An embodied cognition approach to meaning and linguistic content. [Journal (Paginated)] (In Press)

Warning

There is a more recent version of this eprint available. Click here to view it.

Full text available as:

[img]
Preview
 PDF - Accepted Version
162Kb

Abstract

A central finding in experimental research identified with Embodied Cognition (EC) is that understanding actions involves their embodied simulation, i.e. executing some processes involved in performing these actions. Extending these findings, I argue that reenactment – the overt embodied simulation of actions and practices, including especially communicative actions and practices, within utterances – makes it possible to forge an integrated EC-based account of linguistic meaning. In particular, I argue: (a) that remote entities can be referred to by reenacting actions performed with them; (b) that the use of grammatical constructions can be conceived of as the reenactment of linguistic action routines; (c) that complex enunciational structures (reported speech, irony, etc.) involve a separate level of reenactment, on which characters are presented as interacting with one another within the utterance; (d) that the segmentation of long utterances into shorter units involves the reenactment of brief audience interventions between units; and (e) that the overall meaning of an utterance can be stated in reenactment terms. The notion of reenactment provides a conceptual framework for accounting for aspects of language that are usually thought to be outside the reach of EC in an EC framework, thus supporting a view of meaning and linguistic content as thoroughly grounded in action and interaction.

Item Type:Journal (Paginated)
Additional Information:Pre-proofs. Last-minute changes to list of references are possible.
Keywords:action; cognitive linguistics; dialogue; embodied cognition; meaning; simulation
Subjects:Linguistics > Pragmatics
Linguistics > Semantics
Philosophy > Philosophy of Language
ID Code:7625
Deposited By: Sandler, Dr. Sergeiy
Deposited On:17 Sep 2011 17:43
Last Modified:17 Sep 2011 17:43

Available Versions of this Item

References in Article

Select the SEEK icon to attempt to find the referenced article. If it does not appear to be in cogprints you will be forwarded to the paracite service. Poorly formated references will probably not work.

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Aziz-Zadeh, L., & Damasio, A. (2008). Embodied semantics for actions: Findings from functional brain imaging. Journal de Physiologie – Paris, 102 (1–3), 35–39.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). Discourse in the novel. In M. M. Bakhtin, The dialogic imagination: Four essays (pp. 259–422). Austin: University of Texas Press.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). From notes made in 1970–71. In M. M. Bakhtin, Speech genres and other late essays (pp. 132–158). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Borghi, A. M., & Cimatti, F. (2009). Words as tools and the problem of abstract word meanings. In N. Taatgen, & H. van Rijn (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2304–2309). Amsterdam: Cognitive Science Society.

Borghi, A. M., & Cimatti, F. (2010). Embodied cognition and beyond: Acting and sensing the body. Neuropsychologia, 48, 763–773.

Brandt, L., & Brandt, P. A. (2005). Making sense of a blend: A cognitive-semiotic approach to metaphor. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 3, 216–249.

Chafe, W. L. (1993). Prosodic and functional units of language. In J. A. Edwards, & M. D. Lampert (Eds.), Talking data: Transcription and coding in discourse research (pp. 33–43). Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.

Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58 (1), 7–19.

Cooren, F. (2010). Action and agency in dialogue. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Coulson, S. & Fauconnier, G. (1999). Fake guns and stone lions: Conceptual blending and privative adjectives. In B. Fox, D. Jurafsky, & L. Michaelis (Eds.) Cognition and function in language (pp. 143–158). Palo Alto, CA: CSLI.

Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Du Bois, J. W. (2009). Interior dialogues: The co-voicing of ritual in solitude. In G. Senft, & E. B. Basso (Eds.) Ritual communication (pp. 317–372). Oxford: Berg Publishers.

Du Bois, J. W. (forthcoming). Towards a dialogic syntax. Cognitive Linguistics.

Du Bois, J. W., & Englebretson, R. (2004). Santa Barbara corpus of spoken American English, Part 3. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.

Du Bois, J. W., & Englebretson, R. (2005). Santa Barbara corpus of spoken American English, Part 4. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.

Du Bois, J. W., Schuetze-Coburn, S., Cumming, S., & Paolino, D. (1993). Outline of discourse transcription. In J. A. Edwards, & M. D. Lampert (Eds.), Talking data: Transcription and coding in discourse research (pp. 45–89). Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.

Ducrot, O. (1984). Le dire et le dit. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit.

Ekić, M, & Pascual, E. (2011). “The cigarette lighter says...”: Fictive interaction in languages without a writing system. Paper presented at the 32nd TaBu Dag linguistics conference, University of Groningen.

Fairclough, N. (1992). Intertextuality in critical discourse analysis. Linguistics and Education, 4, 269–293.

Fauconnier, G. (1994). Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.

Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 64 (3), 501–538.

Fischer, M., & Zwaan, R. (2008). Embodied language: A review of the role of the motor system in language comprehension. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 825–850.

Gallese, V. (2003). The manifold nature of interpersonal relations: The quest for a common mechanism. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, B, 358, 517–528.

Gallese, V. (2008). Mirror neurons and the social nature of language: The neural exploitation hypothesis. Social Neuroscience, 3, 317–333.

Gallese, V., & Lakoff, G. (2005). The brain’s concepts: The role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22, 455–479.

Gasparov, B. M. (2010). Speech, memory, and meaning: Intertextuality in everyday language. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Geluykens, R. (1992). From discourse process to grammatical construction: On left-dislocation in English, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Giora, R. (2007). “And Olmert is a responsible man”: On the priority of salience-based yet incompatible interpretations in nonliteral language. Cognitive Studies, 14 (3), 269–281.

Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Goldman, A., & de Vignemont, F. (2009). Is social cognition embodied? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13 (4), 154–159.

Grafton, S. T. (2009). Embodied cognition and the simulation of action to understand others. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1156, 97–117.

Grafton, S. T., Arbib, M. A., Fadiga, L., & Rizzolatti, G. (1996). Localization of grasp representations in humans by positron emission tomography. 2. Observation compared with imagination. Experimental Brain Research, 112 (1), 103–111.

Grice, H. P. (1957). Meaning. The Philosophical Review, 66 (3), 377–388.

Hopper, P. J. (1998). Emergent grammar. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure (pp. 155–202). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

Iacoboni, M., Woods, R. P., Brass, M., Bekkering, H., Mazziotta, J. C., & Rizzolatti, G. (1999). Cortical mechanisms of human imitation. Science, 286, 2526–2528.

Jirak, D., Menz, M. M., Buccino, G., Borghi, A. M., & Binkofski, F. (2010). Grasping language – A short story on embodiment. Consciousness and Cognition, 19, 711–720.

Lakoff, G., & Johnson M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception. New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Noë, A. (2004). Action in perception. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Padden, C., Aronoff, M., Meir, I., & Sandler, W. (2010). In search of grammar. Paper presented at the Theoretical issues in sign language research conference, Purdue University.

Pascual, E. (2002). Imaginary trialogues: Conceptual blending and fictive interaction in criminal courts. Utrecht: LOT.

Pulvermüller, F. (2005). Brain mechanisms linking language and action. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6 (7), 576–582.

Rizzolatti, G., & Craighero, L. (2004). The mirror–neuron system. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 27, 169–192.

Rizzolatti, G., Fadiga, L., Gallese, V., & Fogassi, L. (1996). Premotor cortex and the recognition of motor actions. Cognitive Brain Research, 3, 131–141.

Rommetveit, R. (1992). Outlines of a dialogically based social-cognitive approach to human cognition and communication. In A. H. Wold (Ed.), The dialogical alternative: Towards a theory of language and mind (pp. 19–44). Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.

Rosch, E. (1973). Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 328–350.

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50 (4), 696–735.

Schegloff, E. A. (1982). Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of ‘uh huh’ and other things that come between sentences. In. D. Tannen (Ed.), Analyzing discourse: Text and talk (pp. 71–93). Washington, DC: George¬town University Press.

Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1981). Irony and the use – mention distinction. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical Pragmatics (pp. 295–318). New York: Academic Press.

Tylén, K., Weed, E., Wallentin, M., Roepstorff, A., & Frith, C. (2010). Language as a tool for interacting minds. Mind and Language, 25 (1), 3–29.

Umiltà, M. A., Kohler, E., Gallese, V., Fogassi, L., Fadiga, L., Keysers, C., & Rizzolatti, G. (2001). “I know what you are doing”: A neurophysiological study. Neuron, 31 (1), 155–165.

Verhagen, A. (2005). Constructions of intersubjectivity. Discourse, syntax, and cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Voloshinov, V. N. (1973). Marxism and the philosophy of language. New York: Seminar Press.

Vries, L. de. (2010). Direct speech, fictive interaction, and bible translation. The Bible Translator, 61(1), 31-40.

Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9 (4), 625–636.

Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.

Zlatev, J., Racine, T., Sinha, C., & Itkonen, E. (eds.) (2008). The shared mind: Perspectives on intersubjectivity. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Metadata

Repository Staff Only: item control page

Cogprints is powered by EPrints 3 which is developed by the School of Electronics and Computer Science at the University of Southampton. More information and software credits.