Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > From immediate to extended intersubjectification

Electronic data

  • LCO_1500026_Copy_edited

    Rights statement: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/language-and-cognition The final, definitive version of this article has been published in the Journal, Language and Cognition, 9 (1), pp 88-120 2017, © 2017 Cambridge University Press.

    Accepted author manuscript, 565 KB, PDF document

    Available under license: CC BY: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

From immediate to extended intersubjectification: a gradient approach to intersubjective awareness and semasiological change

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal article

Published
<mark>Journal publication date</mark>03/2017
<mark>Journal</mark>Language and Cognition
Issue number1
Volume9
Number of pages33
Pages (from-to)88-120
Publication statusPublished
Early online date28/12/15
Original languageEnglish

Abstract

This paper provides a theoretical and methodological contribution to the heated debate on intersubjectivity and intersubjectification (Nuyts, 2001, 2012; Traugott & Dasher, 2002; Traugott, 2003, 2010, 2012; Verhagen, 2005; Narrog, 2010, 2012; Dancygier & Sweetser, 2012). I will argue that intersubjectivity, intended as a subject’s awareness of the other persona(s)’ feelings, knowledge, and beliefs, can be construed alternatively on an ‘immediate’ and on an ‘extended’ level. Immediate intersubjectivity (I-I) corresponds to the mutual awareness of the speech participants during the ongoing speech event, whereas extended intersubjectivity (E-I) includes an assumed third party (specific or generic) who has an indirect social bearing on the utterance (cf. Tantucci 2013, 2014). Along a unidirectional cline of change, extended intersubjectification constitutes a further stage of semantic and/or grammatical reanalysis with respect to its immediate counterpart. In order to empirically justify the diachronic continuum between the two, I provide some corpus-illustrated (cf. Tummers et al., 2005, p. 235) examples from Mandarin and corpus-based evidence about the constructions [you don’t want X] and believe it or not in American English.

Bibliographic note

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/language-and-cognition The final, definitive version of this article has been published in the Journal, Language and Cognition, 9 (1), pp 88-120 2017, © 2017 Cambridge University Press.