Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T15:21:41.320Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

12 - The Interplay of Linguistic, Conceptual, and Encyclopedic Knowledge in Meaning Construction and Comprehension

from Part III - Pragmatic Approaches to Context

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 November 2023

By
Istvan Kecskes
Edited by
Jesús Romero-Trillo
Jesús Romero-Trillo
Affiliation:
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
Get access

Summary

One of the most complicated issues of present-day linguistics is the relationship of three types of knowledge: linguistic knowledge, conceptual knowledge, and encyclopedic knowledge. After discussing the complexity of their interplay from different perspectives, the chapter presents a model to explain their relationship. The model has linguistic knowledge on one side, and the sociocultural background knowledge (world knowledge) on the other side. There is constant interaction between the two sides in language use. For analytic reasons, within the sociocultural background knowledge there a distinction is made between conceptual knowledge and encyclopedic knowledge. According to this model, meaning is constructed in the dynamic interplay of actual situational context and lexical items, with the context representing the actual, present, situational, ever-changing side of sociocultural background and the lexical item(s) embodying previous experiences and relations in the sociocultural background. The lexical items with their semantic properties (linguistic knowledge) represent prior reoccurring experience (conceptual knowledge), and the actual situational context triggers the other part of world knowledge that we previously called encyclopedic knowledge. The difference between the two types of sociocultural background knowledge is that the conceptual knowledge part is immediately tied to linguistic knowledge while the other type of sociocultural background knowledge (encyclopedic knowledge) is called upon as needed in language use.

Keywords

linguistic knowledgeconceptual knowledgeencyclopedic knowledgesocio-cultural backgroundcontext
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Language in Context , pp. 268 - 288
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baker, W. (2009). The cultures of English as a Lingua Franca. TESOL Quarterly, 43(4), 567–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, W. (2015). Culture and Identity through English as a Lingua Franca. Boston/Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldinger, K. (1980). Semantic Theory: Towards a Modern Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bierwisch, M. (1981). Basic issues in the development of word meaning. In Deutch, W. (ed.), The Child’s Construction of Language (pp. 341–387). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bierwisch, M., and Schreuder, R. (1992). From concepts to lexical items. Cognition, 42, 23–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brumfit, C. (2006). A European perspective on language as liminality. In Mar-Molinero, C. and Stevenson, P. (eds.), Language Ideologies, Policies and Practices. Language and Globalization (pp. 28–43). Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230523883_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1975). The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W., and Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W., and Wood, E. J. (2000). Construal operations in linguistics and artificial intelligence. In Albertazzi, L. (ed.), Meaning and Cognition: A Multidisciplinary Approach (pp. 51–78). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruse, D. A. (1992). Antonymy revisited: Some thoughts on the relationship between words and concepts. In Frames, Fields, and Contrasts (pp. 289–306). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Cruse, D. A. (2002). Language, meaning and sense: semantics. In Collinge, N. (ed.), An Encyclopedia of Language (pp. 87–104). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
D’Andrade, R. (1987). A folk model of the mind. In Holland, D. and Quinn, N. (eds.), Cultural Models in Language and Thought (pp. 113–147). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
D’Andrade, R. (1992). Schemas and motivation. In D’Andrade, R. and Strauss, C. (eds.), Human Motives and Cultural Models (pp. 23–44). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, V. (2006). Lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(4), 491–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G. (1997). Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm (pp. 111–137). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (1997). Diachronic Prototype Semantics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. (1996). Why many concepts are metaphorical. Cognition, 61, 309–319.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goddard, C. (1998). Semantic Analysis: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gruber, J. S. (1985). Lexical, conceptual, and encyclopedic meaning. Quaderni de Semanlica, 2, 254–267.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J. (2001). Contextualization and ideology in intercultural communication. In Luzio, A. D., Gunthner, S., and Orletti, F. (eds.), Culture in Communication: Analysis of Intercultural Situations (pp. 35–54). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gumperz, J. J., and Levinson, S., eds. (1996). Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haiman, J. (1980). Dictionaries and encyclopedias. Lingua, 50, 329–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harnad, S. (1990). The Symbol Grounding Problem. Physica D, 42, 335–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N., and Fitch, W. T. (2002). The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science, 298, 1569–1579.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
He, Sui. 2021. Cognitive metaphor theories in translation studies: Toward a dual-model parametric approach. Intercultural Pragmatics, 18(1), 25–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, D., and Quinn, N., eds. (1987). Cultural Models in Language and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
House, J. (2014). Managing Academic Institutional Discourse in English as a Lingua Franca. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopkinson, Christopher. (2021). Realizations of oppositional speech acts in English: A contrastive analysis of discourse in L1 and L2 settings. Intercultural Pragmatics, 18(2): 163–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental Models. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2003). Situation-Bound Utterances in L1 and L2. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2013). Intercultural Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2019a). English as a Lingua Franca: The Pragmatic Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2019b). Impoverished pragmatics? The semantics–pragmatics interface from an intercultural perspective. Intercultural Pragmatics, 16(5): 489–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, I. 2021. Processing implicatures in English as a Lingua Franca communication. Lingua, 256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2021.103067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiefer, F. (1990). Linguistic, conceptual and encyclopedic knowledge: Some implications for lexicography. In Magay, T. and Zigány, J. (eds.), BudaLEX ’88 Proceedings: Papers from the 3rd International EURALEX Congress. Budapest: Akademiai Kiado.Google Scholar
Kramsch, C. (1986). From language proficiency to interactional competence. The Modern Language Journal, 70(4), 366–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and Culture in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1988). An overview of cognitive grammar. Topics in Cognitive Linguistics, Vol. III. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
LaPolla, R. J. (2010). Arguments against “Subject” and “Direct Object” as Viable Concepts in Chinese. Frankfurt: Universitätsbibliothek Johann Christian Senckenberg.Google Scholar
Leibniz, G. W. (1903). Opuscules et fragments inédits de Leibniz: Extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque royale de Hanovre, ed. Couturat, Louis, Paris: Félix Alcan.Google Scholar
Meierkord, C. (2002). “Language stripped bare” or “linguistic masala”? Culture in lingua franca communication. In Knapp, K. and Meierkord, C. (eds.), Lingua Franca Communication (pp. 109–134). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Mel’cuk, I., and Zholkovsky, A. (1984). Explanatory Combinatorial Dictionary of Modern Russian. Vienna: Wiener Slawistischer Almanach.Google Scholar
Minsky, M. (1975). A framework for representing knowledge. In Winston, P. H. (ed.), The Psychology of Computer Vision (pp. 211–277). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J. (2003). Grammar is grammar and usage is usage. Language, 79, 682–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paolucci, Claudio. 2021. The distinction between semantics and pragmatics: The point of view of semiotics. Intercultural Pragmatics, 18(3): 293–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S., and Jackendoff, R. (2005). The faculty of language: What’s so special about it? Cognition, 95, 201–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rampton, B. (1995). Crossing: Language and Ethnicity among Adolescents. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Risager, K. (2006). Language and Culture: Global Flows and Local Complexity. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E. (1977). Human categorization. In Warren, N. (ed.), Advances in Cross-cultural Psychology (Vol. I, pp. 1–49). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Schank, R. C., and Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding: An Enquiry into Human Knowledge Structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D. (1991). Learning to think for speaking: Native language, cognition, and rhetorical style. Pragmatics, 1(1), 7–25.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1997). Mind, code, and text. In Bybee, J., Haiman, J., and Thompson, S. A. (eds.), Essays on Language Function and Language Type: Dedicated to T. Givón (pp. 437–467). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J. (2000). The network model and the two-level model in comparison. In Peeters, B. (ed.), The Lexicon–Encyclopedia Interface (pp. 115–143). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Olmen, D., and Tantucci, , V. (2022). Getting attention in different languages: A usage-based approach to parenthetical look in Chinese, Dutch, English, and Italian. Intercultural Pragmatics, 19(2): 141–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werkmann, H., Kohl, Marianna Bolognesi, K. (2021). The status of conventional metaphorical meaning in the L2 lexicon. Intercultural Pragmatics, 18(4), 447–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whorf, B. L. (1939). The relation of habitual thought and behavior to language. In Carroll, J. (ed.), Language, Thought and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1996). Semantics: Primes and Universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×