LANGUAGE, COGNITION, INTERACTION. CONCEPTUAL BLENDING AS DISCURSIVE PRACTICE Inaugural-Dissertation zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades der Philosophie des Fachbereichs 05 der Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen vorgelegt von Vera Stadelmann aus Innsbruck Gießen 2012 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Dekan: Prof. Dr. Magnus Huber 1. Berichterstatter: Prof. Dr. Joybrato Mukherjee 2. Berichterstattter: Prof. Dr. Helmuth Feilke LANGUAGE, COGNITION, INTERACTION ! TABLE OF CONTENTS Erklärung………………………………………………………………………... iv Acknowledgments ………………………………………………………………. v List of abbreviations and acronyms …………………………………………….. vi List of tables ……………………………………………………………………... vii List of figures ……………………………………………………………………. viii List of transcripts ………………………………………………………………... x Transcription conventions ……………………………………………………… xi 1. LANGUAGE, COGNITION, INTERACTION. CONCEPTUAL BLENDING IN A SOCIAL-INTERACTIONAL COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS …………………………………………………………. 1 1.1. Introduction ……………………………………………………………….. 1 1.2. Conceptual blending as discursive practice: Preview …….………………... 5 2. MENTAL SPACES AND CONCEPTUAL INTEGRATION THEORIES …. 8 2.1. Mental Spaces Theory ……………………………………………………... 9 2.2. Conceptual Integration Theory ……………………………………………. 16 2.2.1. Constitutive principles ……………………………………………. 19 2.2.2. Governing principles ……………………………………………... 22 2.2.3. Blending typology ………………………………………………… 25 2.3. Critical discussion …………………………………………………………... 28 2.3.1. Post-hoc vs. ad-hoc ……………………………………………….. 29 2.3.2. The Generic Space ………………………………………………. 29 2.3.3. Generalisation, terminology and falsifiability ……………………. 30 2.3.4. Delineating Mental Spaces ………………………………………. 32 2.3.5. Whose Mental Spaces? Whose blends? …………………………... 33 2.3.6. Loci and levels of mappings and blending ……………………….. 33 2.3.7. Homunculus entering through the stage door …………………… 35 2.3.8. Blending in context, blending in interaction ……………………... 35 2.3.9. Blending typology ………………………………………………… 37 2.4. First conclusions ……………………………………………………………. 40 3. PUTTING THEORY TO THE TEST IN INTERACTIONAL COGNITIVE SEMANTICS …………………………………………………………… 42 3.1. The State-of-the-Art of empirical and experimental research within MSCI . 42 3.1.1. Discursive approaches to MSCI ………………………………….. 44 3.1.2. EMCA-inspired approaches to MSCI …………………………… 46 3.1.3. Studies on blending taxonomies ………………………………….. 48 3.2. Methods for a socially grounded MSCI: Conversation Analysis …………... 49 3.2.1. CA: Historical development and philosophical underpinnings ….. 51 3.2.2. CA: Key assumptions and concepts ……………………………… 55 3.3. A Social-Interactional Approach to MSCI: Preliminary hypotheses on conceptual reconfigurations ………………………………………………... 62 3.3.1. Cognition as centre-stage rather than back-stage ………………... 64 3.3.2. Common Ground and Mental Spaces …………………………… 65 3.3.3. Coordination and Mental Spaces ……………………………….. 67 ! -i-! LANGUAGE, COGNITION, INTERACTION ! 3.3.4. Mental Spaces as interactionally relevant and phenomenologically evident ……………………………………………………………. 68 3.3.5. Current Discourse Space as a basis for communication …………. 69 3.3.6. Blending analyses in a social-interactional Cognitive Semantics … 71 3.4. Data collection and research design ………………………………………... 73 3.4.1. Domain for study: Impersonation humour ………………………. 73 3.4.1.1. Polyphonic narrative, double-voiced discourse and impersonations ………………………………………… 74 3.4.1.2. Performance and theat(ic)ality in impersonations ……… 77 3.4.1.3. Impersonations, play and humour ……………………... 81 3.4.2. Impersonations as conceptual blends ……..……………………… 86 3.4.3. Data source ………………………………………………………. 90 3.4.3.1. Studying interaction-as-broadcasted in Never Mind The Buzzcocks ………………………………………………… 90 3.4.3.2. Transcription …………………………………………… 95 3.4.4. Data Analysis: Process ……………………………………………. 98 3.4.4.1. Cognitive-semantic analysis: General principles ……….. 99 3.4.4.2. Interactional analysis: General principles ………………. 100 4. IMPERSONATION BLENDS: CASE STUDIES ………………………… 103 4.1. The Sports Commentator: A Mirror Blend Impersonation ……………….. 103 4.1.1. Interactional organisation guides conceptualisation processes ….. 105 4.1.2. Signalling the blend: Changing voices …………………………… 110 4.2. The Proprietor: A Single-Scope Impersonation Blend …………………….. 111 4.2.1. Belief space and narrative space in impersonation prefaces ……... 113 4.2.2. From preface to performance ……………………………………. 115 4.2.3. Frame structuring in The Proprietor …………………………….. 117 4.3. The Metal Detector: A Double-Scope Impersonation …………………….. 119 4.3.1. Interactional organisation: Negotiating viewing frames …………. 120 4.3.2. ‘Zooming in’ on a narrative ……….……………………………... 121 4.3.3. Frame structuring in double-scope impersonations ……………… 123 4.4. The Way We Think, The Way We Act ……………………………………. 125 5. INTERACTIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPERSONATION BLENDS ……….. 127 5.1. Local occasioning and diegetic prefaces ……………………………………. 128 5.1.1. Local occasioning and prefaces formats in mirror impersonations . 129 5.1.2. Local occasioning and preface formats in single-scope impersonations …………………………………………………… 136 5.1.3. Local occasioning and preface formats in double-scope impersonations ................................................................................ 141 5.1.4. Discussion ………………………………………………………… 143 5.2. Demarcation markers: Parsing the diegetic from the mimetic …………….. 145 5.2.1. Quotative systems ………………………………………………… 146 5.2.1.1. Quotatives in mirror impersonations …………………... 151 5.2.1.2. Quotatives in single-scope impersonations …………….. 155 5.2.1.3. Quotatives in double-scope impersonations ……………. 161 5.2.1.4. Discussion of findings …..………………………………. 164 5.2.2. Embodied demarcation markers: Gaze and postural orientation ... 165 5.2.2.1. Gaze and postural positioning in mirror impersonations 168 5.2.2.2. Gaze and postural positioning in single-scope ! -ii-! LANGUAGE, COGNITION, INTERACTION ! impersonations …………………………………………. 172 5.2.2.3. Gaze and postural positioning in double-scope impersonations …………………………………………. 177 5.2.2.4. Discussion ………………………………………………. 178 5.2.3. Conclusion ……………………………………………………….. 184 5.3. Designing performances: Floor management, chunking and listing ………. 185 5.3.1. Floor management and performance design in mirror impersonations …………………………………………………… 188 5.3.2. Floor management and performance design in single-scope impersonations …………………………………………………… 196 5.3.3. Floor management and performance design in double-scope impersonations …………………………………………………… 200 5.3.4. Discussion ………………………………………………………… 201 5.4. Ending and exiting impersonation sequences ……………………………… 202 5.4.1. Repeats …………………………………………………………… 203 5.4.2. Punch line-mode …………………………………………………. 204 5.4.3. Coda ……………………………………………………………… 207 5.4.4. Laugh particle transitions ………………………………………… 208 5.4.5. Practices for reengaging with topical talk ………………………… 210 5.4.6. Discussion ………………………………………………………… 213 5.5. An action-based typology of impersonation blends ………………………... 215 6. THE PRIMACY OF PRAGMATICS ……………………………………. 218 6.1. Conceptual blending in interaction: A discursively grounded model of in- situ meaning coordination ………………………………………………….. 219 6.2. Project summary …………………………………………………………… 225 6.3. Prospects for further research ……………………………………………… 229 References ………………………………………………………………………. 232 Appendix ………………………………………………………………………... 254 A1 German summary ……………………………………………………… 255 ! ! -iii-! LANGUAGE, COGNITION, INTERACTION ! ERKLÄRUNG Ich erkläre: Ich habe die vorgelegte Dissertation selbständig und nur mit den Hilfen angefertigt, die ich in der Dissertation angegeben habe. Alle Textstellen, die wörtlich oder sinngemäß aus veröffentlichten oder nicht veröffentlichten Schriften entnommen sind, und alle Angaben, die auf mündlichen Auskünften beruhen, sind als solche kenntlich gemacht. Vera Stadelmann Gießen, den 7. März 2012 ! -iv-! LANGUAGE, COGNITION, INTERACTION ! ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work took shape as a result of discussions with many highly inspirational people. First and foremost, I’m deeply indebted to the faculty, staff and students in the Department for English and the International Graduate Centre for the Study of Culture at Justus Liebig University Giessen. I owe a great debt of gratitude to my advisors Joybrato Mukherjee and Helmuth Feilke for their valuable feedback, encouragment and continuous support. Rosemary Bock, Christiane Brand, Thorsten Brato, Sandra Götz, Christopher Koch, Svetla Rogatcheva and Marco Schilk not only provided their linguistic expertise – thank you for giving me such a warm welcome to the team and helping me to navigate my way through the department! At the GCSC, I would like to express my most profound gratitude to Ansgar Nünning for getting me to Giessen in the first place. Doris Bachmann-Medick, Julia Faisst, Alexander Friedrich, Gero Guttzeit, Beatrice Michaelis, Martin Zierold, and Ann Van de Veire, to name but a few, provided the most stimulating of environments one could hope for. At Innsbruck and Sheffield, I’d like to thank Manfred Markus for inviting me to the linguistic train way back when, and Alexander Onysko, Martin Peart, Christian Quendler and Peter Thompson for their valuable comments, friendship and inspiration throughout the years. Grant Price was an expert proofreader. For the opportunity to carry out several research stays and engage in spirited discussions, I’d like to thank the faculty and staff at Syddansk Universitet Odense and the 2009 Linguistic Institute at UC Berkeley. I owe a huge amount to Anders Hougaard, Gitte Rasmussen and the entire SoPraCon