Theoretical Perspectives on Interaction as a Cognitive and Social Phenomenon

Janusz Badio and Kamila Ciepiela

Abstract

The first article in the collection introduces a distinction between intrapersonal and

interpersonal interaction. The former refers to a variety of mental, cognitive phenomena and

their intricate relations. They include, though not exhaust, embodiment and grammar,

perception and cognition, motion, construal, gesture (and their embodied motivations). The

latter (interpersonal interaction) is a social dimension of interaction. It involves the so called

'talk in interaction', which is conceived of as a device for building aspects of reality, identity

being one of them.

1. Introduction The first paper in the present volume serves the purpose of discussing the central

term of its title, i.e. interaction. We also wish to relate it to the other term

(besides language itself), i.e. action. Language, action and interaction are

different facets of complex and multimodal communications between humans.

The present article naturally concentrates only on such senses of these two

central terms that are also dealt with in the papers included in the volume.

Generally, a good departure point in the pursuit of reaching an appropriate

perspective on interaction is a distinction made by Ellis (1999), who says that

interaction is either intrapersonal, or interpersonal. The former, intrapersonal interaction refers to cognitive representations and operations. These have been

researched as either modal (embodied) or amodal (purely symbolic and

arbitrary). Contemporary cognitive science (e.g. Barsalou 1999, Bergen 2012)

has amassed enough conclusive evidence in support of the modal character of

mental representations. In a nutshell, the same brain centres that are responsible

for modalities of vision, hearing, touch, or motion are also active in response to

language production, comprehension, and gesture. Hence, all meaning is

embodied. Instead of asking What meaning is?, one is advised to ask about What

people do when they try to comprehend and produce linguistic messages? Not

only can knowledge structures of these various modalities be creatively blended,

but they also lay foundations for metaphoric expressions, compositionality and

grammar. In this sense one can indeed speak of interactivity on a massive scale

in the human brain, and this interactivity is relevant to language. If we ask

people what they do when they comprehend linguistic messages, or when they

produce them, and answer that they mentally simulate their contents, or in other

words build online situation models, this is where action surely enters the scene.

Regarding this type (intrapersonal) interaction, one must not miss the

observation that perception and cognition interact, and so do memory and

10 Janusz Badio and Kamila Ciepiela

expectations, grammar and cognition, to mention just a few introductory

examples. In sum, intrapersonally, different cognitive systems of variable

modalities and functions communicate between each other. The role of context

effects cannot be overvalued as well. They are observable in the so-called

perception via conception in context as other mind (Givon 2005), or in context

when it refers to people, objects, setting, location, or pragmatic goals.

This cognitive outlook on interaction is supplemented by interpersonal interaction associated with language use in real, social contexts of linguistic

communication. This perspective encompasses research topics in: speech act

theory, interactional sociolinguistics, ethnography of communication,

pragmatics, conversation analysis, or variation analysis. First, SAT (Speech Act

Theory) developed by Austin (1962) and Searle (1969) taught us that both

language and action are relevant for the analysis of meaning. There are

constatives, whose truth value can be judged and performatives, which lack this

property, but instead are said as part of a larger action frame of: christening,

wedding and the like. The basic unit of analysis is a speech act (p. 21). To

delimit it, one has to bring communication, language and context of speech

situation (especially an individual speaker) into focus. Also, quite importantly,

Searle (1979: 23) says that there is a limit to how people actually act with

language; expressions always carry multiple possibilities of interpretation of

their pragmatic force. Second, within interactional sociolinguistics, Gumperz

and Hymes (1972) write that the discourse clues seldom rise to the level of

awareness; nevertheless, they indicate a speaker’s attitudes, emotions, coherence

of the situation or point of view and status. Third, the ethnography of

communication as represented by Mathesius (1924), Sapir (1933), Hymes (1961

and 1972) or Malinowski (1949) stresses the importance of close relationships

between language and culture. Fourth, conversation analysis (or

ethnomethodology) represented by Garfinkel (1967 and 1974) and Sacks et al.

(1974) focuses on everyday conduct, knowledge and actions of individuals in

society. The stress is on the link between knowledge and action. The former is

displayed through action and is critical to it. Next, Variation analysis

represented by Labov (1972: 369), who studied English spoken common people

and reached the conclusion that, “the vernacular used by working-class speakers

[…] is the vehicle used by some of the most talented and effective speakers of

the English language”. The last approach listed here, pragmatics, grew of work

by Grice (1975) and Leech (1983) who studied interaction between different

parameters of context. An important motivating factor in making linguistic

choices of form turned out be some extra-linguistic factors such as: politeness,

interest, quality or quantity of information expected by convention, or social

distance.

The notion of choice, highlighted in postmodern approaches to the study of

language, implies language users’ situational semi-independence in selecting

Theoretical perspectives on interaction as a cognitive and … 11

linguistic elements out of the pool of devices available for them locally. As a

result, language is no longer understood as a system of relatively stable

meanings; rather it becomes an occasioned practice which is fluid, ever-

changing and performed locally. Any action on the part of one interactant will

always cause an appropriated response which can get legitimized or rejected by

other interactants. In this view, meanings are locally occasioned in talk-in-

interaction, they are consequential for the interaction at hand, and therefore

participants clearly “orient” to them. By using language expressions locally,

language users point to their roles not only as speakers or addressees, but also to

their location in time and space and to their relationship to others. By carrying

out different actions, interactants continuously constitute and reconstitute their

positions/identities with respect to each other, to objects, places and times.

Accordingly, the only relevant context to understand the emergence of meanings

in interaction is the local context.

In sum, there are two general dimensions of research into interactivity,

language and action: cognitive and social. Interaction between them is also

natural and expected. In agreement with the content of the book the topics

covered here include: perception and cognition, motion and its construal relative

to specific language and culture, gestures, context and meaning construal, and

last but not least identity. The actual articles that follow often do not only

concentrate on a single topic. Instead, they sometimes cover them in parallel.

2. Cognition and interaction Interactivity between cognition, perception and language, also discourse as well

as between various cognitive systems is one of the central, though sometimes

only implicit themes within cognitive linguistics. A brief overview of only

selected topics in the domain of cognitive linguistics will serve the purpose of

substantiating this claim, albeit without any attempt to be exhaustive.

2.1. Embodiment and grammar

Perhaps the most fundamental assumption already hinted upon is that of

embodiment. Rohrer (2007: 27-31) claims it has twelve distinct senses, and their

features are grouped around two of them: “experiential embodiment…”, and

“embodiment as the bodily substrate”. The modern formulations of the thesis

ask “how the bodily substrate shapes language” (p. 31). There is a hypothesis

that both conceptual and perceptual processes share the same neural

architecture.

The embodiment thesis explains many linguistic phenomena from grammar

and lexis, through metaphor to semantics. Grammar reflects embodied image

schemas, is topological and organizes participants, objects and events within a

single scene. Its rules depend on (and so also interact with) basic scenes of

human experience as described by Goldberg (2005) and recorded in traditional

12 Janusz Badio and Kamila Ciepiela

grammars as the so-called basic sentence patters such as: SVO, SVOO, SVOC,

etc. They are meaningful, prototypically describe energetic interactions in the

physical world (Langacker 2008) and can be creatively extended to abstract

domains of knowledge.

Taylor (1995) provides an illustration of the SVO (subject, verb, object)

category. The central prototype is reserved for situations in which a single

human participant-AGENT is acting upon an object, as a result of which the

position of the object or its shape undergoes change. Such physical, and

prototypical situation can be exemplified by:

1) John kicked the ball.

Although the sentence does not code directly that as a result the ball was lifted

in the air and landed some distance away, people spontaneously activate mental

simulations in which this information is present (even obvious). It is a prime

example of how a top-down schema for action interacts with the information

directly coded in language: JOHN, BALL and their relation, KICK.

The grammatical construction SVO is polysemous and its range of

applications is very wide,

2) The army approaches the city.

3) The boy swam the lake.

4) His tent only sleeps five. (adapted from Taylor 1995)

Examples [2-4] are unprototypical by virtue of the observation that in [2]

nothing happens to the city as the army approaches it; in [3] similarly, the lake

remains indifferent to the boy's swimming, and [4] most peripheral because the

subject is non-human, and the sentence describes potential situation with

reference to the billiard ball model as explained by Langacker (xxx). The

meaning of grammatical construction interacts with the original, physical

experience that gives rise to them, and is then semantically extended.

This possibility of extending the meaning of grammar structures to novel

situations was studied by Glenberg and Kashak (2000) who demonstrated

experimentally that people are able to make sense of sentences with de-verbal

nouns that do not actually exist in English, such as: Peter ball-penned* the book to his friend. Most experimental subjects claimed that such sentences describe

some kind of transfer, and this conclusion was possible only due to

meaningfulness of grammar. Again, in this example grammar is shown to

interact with experience (embodiment).

Theoretical perspectives on interaction as a cognitive and … 13

2.2. Metaphor and metonymy, blending Conceptual metaphor and metonymy are still other aspects of intrapersonal

interactivity. In the case of conceptual metaphor, there is interaction between

what has been termed the source domain and the target domain. The source

domain is a knowledge structure (usually more concrete) in terms of which one

can talk about something more abstract and elusive or new, i.e. the target

domain. This intrapersonal interactivity between knowledge structures has been

very well documented and studied in CL.

Another fine example of interactivity between knowledge structures is

provided by the so-called blending theory (cf. Coulson 2001), which explains

how different components of one knowledge domain can be selectively

juxtaposed with other entities that belong to another domain.

2.3. Perception and cognition Interactive character of perception-related and cognitive processes has been the

subject of interest of psychology ad linguistics. Research that relates linguistic

and psychological findings, where the interaction between cognition, perception

and language is clearly visible was done by Chafe (1994). It was shown that due

to the limitation of human short term (working memory), language production

proceeds in chunks, called intonation units. These, on the other hand, reflect and

code the content of the current focus of attention (so called window of attention).

Attention (consciousness) never stops; it is shifted continually from one scene to

another, or from one aspect of a topic to another topic. Such discourse terms as

intonation unit, topic, episode, and others are now understood to have evolved

from our general cognition, and they interact with various context parameters.

Another example of interactivity between perception and cognition are

provided by tasks in which human subjects are asked to recall a certain

experience, e.g. a sequence of events. It was demonstrated that memory as

evidenced by actual linguistic forms should not only be thought of as a form of

mental representation, but also as a constructive, and creative process. In short,

as it often turns out, and we also know it from anecdotal evidence, it is easy to

disagree with another observer of the same events on some of the seemingly

most obvious things. What one sees and remembers interacts with what s/he

knows, cares for, is interested in, expects, and so on.

2.4. Motion and/or action

Trying to think how the term action fits the cognitive linguistics paradigm, one

hesitates whether to emphasize research on motion, and in fact one contribution

refers to this topic, or perhaps to stress the importance that within cognitive

linguistics it is the empirical research that has been increasingly influential. As

some time ago cognitive linguists realized that their claims need to be

substantiated, numerous studies have been produced into major topics that the

14 Janusz Badio and Kamila Ciepiela

earlier cognitive linguists (REF.) had written on. So the term action can refer to

the fact that data was obtained in behavioural studies. A few examples will be

quoted to demonstrate it.

With research focused on the question what do people do when they comprehend linguistic messages, Bergen (2012: 79) used the so-called sentence-

action compatibility experiment, in which subjects took significantly longer to

press a button to indicate whether a sentence made sense or not. By way of

example, the sentence You have handed Katie a puppy vs. You have handed you a puppy induce different simulations of motor activity: away and towards the

reader. If a participant read a sentence, whose meaning in was incompatible with

the direction in which he had to move his hand to press a button, than the

reaction time was significantly longer as well. This, in turn, was used as an

indicator (operational definition) of a covert, and also largely subconscious

process of mental simulation.

On the grounds of SLA (Second Language Acquisition), Cadierno (2008:

239-276) looks at language specific construals of motion in Spanish and

English, and uses her research to support the thinking for speaking hypothesis. It

claimed that speakers anticipate and adjust their categories to the processing and

coding demands of a particular language they are using. Certainly, action in this

context may refer to the way cognition and language is studied with more focus

on behavioural designs in CL.

2.5. Gestures

Gestures represent still another symbolic system of communication, and their

forms as well as functions have shed light on the interaction between language

and cognition. As in the case of their linguistic equivalents, the relation between

the form of gestures and their meaning is non-arbitrary, but connected with

human embodiment. Sometimes gestures can even more accurately represent

shape or size. Gestures change as a result of how a person has interacted with a

knowledge domain, i.e. whether he has had direct experience with an activity, or

whether he only watched the activity as it was performed by other people. In the

former case people tend to use more so-called enacting gestures than

representing gestures. This is a good example of intrapersonal interaction

between variable knowledge pools that are relevant to action itself, and language

(gesture) use.

2.6. Context and meaning construal The idea that there is interaction between various parameters of context is

probably as long as linguistics itself. It is beautifully sketched in the book

Principles of Pragmatics by Leech (1983). In Cognitive Grammar, Langacker

(2008) identifies context with the base, i.e. a knowledge structure that is

essential for the identification of the profile, i.e. the most cognitively prominent

Theoretical perspectives on interaction as a cognitive and … 15

entity within a given conceptualization. An easy example is the designatum

(semantic pole of linguistic predication) of ARCH. The predicate can only

assume a meaning against a larger context, the immediate domain of CIRCLE.

The ARCH is an entity highlighted against the less salient CIRLCE, without

which however, it would be incomprehensible. This is similar to our

understanding of partonomic structures of THINGS, as in:

body>arm>palm>finger, and EVENTS. Context, less salient, nevertheless

contributes to and interacts with the interpretation and understanding of the

more salient figure, the profile. This partly linguistic process is accountable by

reference to the multiple operations of human attention: its functions and

features.

3. Social dimensions of interaction For cognitive scientists the question of the relation of language and thought has

been a central one for more than forty years now. For the scholars who deal with

language use in social contexts, the focus is on talk or more specifically on

“talk-in-interaction” (Potter and Molder 2005). In other words, language is not

conceived of as a system of meanings that reside in a “talking mind”, but as talk,

that is a practical, social activity located in varied social settings and occurring

between people. Those researchers who focus on talk-in-interaction, draw on

ethnomethodology, conversation analysis, discourse analysis and discursive

psychology.

3.1. Social studies of interaction Ethnomethodological studies that originated with the works of Harold Garfinkel

(1967) have focused on the methods that people use when making sense of their

social worlds. Ethnomethodologists have criticised conventional theories of

action for underestimating the extent to which actions are dependent on aspects

of local settings and ad hoc procedures. Their analytical emphasis has shifted

away from understanding action as orderly mental plans to action as overt

behaviours understood in terms of the full, practical characteristics of the

setting.

Conversation analysis has its origin in the lectures of Harvey Sacks and the

work of his colleagues Gail Jefferson and Emanuel Schegloff. Conversation

analysts focus on the practicality of talking rather than language as the means of

sending coded messages from one mind to another. Thus they study natural talk

as “a medium for action and interaction” (Molder and Potter 2005: 2). From

their point of view, cognition, thoughts or intentions are relevant to the

interaction only in terms of how they are being heard in the interaction itself.

Instead of analysing what processes or mechanism may underlie talk,

conversation analysts attend to minute details of the organisation of actual talk

because “for humans, talking in interaction appears to be a distinctive form of

16 Janusz Badio and Kamila Ciepiela

this primary constituent of social life, and ordinary conversation is very likely

the basic form of organization for talk-in-interaction (Schegloff 2008: 229).

Earlier, Sacks (1992: 11) argued that analysts should “not worry about how

they’re [conversationalists] thinking” or “about whether they’re thinking”, but

“try to come to terms with how it is that the thing comes off”. Therefore, the aim

of the analysis is to show up the continual reconstruction of what is going on in

the interaction, what is done by the users of language and what local practices

are employed by them as they jointly attempt to achieve interactional goals. The

central goal of conversation analysis is, then, to describe the regularly organised

overt procedures through which participants of conversation perform their own

actions and come to recognise the actions of others.

Discourse analysis is another broad discipline whose analytical focus is

both on interactional talk and written forms of language output. Similarly to

other approaches that concentrate on interpersonal interaction, researchers

working within DA paradigm claim that “some of the most fundamental features

of natural language are shaped in accordance with this home environment in co-

present interaction – as adaptations to it, or as part of its very warp and weft”

(Schegloff 2008: 228). Therefore, it is essential that the analysis of discourse

incorporate attention not only to the propositional content and information

distribution of discourse units, but also to the actions they are doing, that is, to

what is getting done by whom with the means of verbal and non-verbal tools in

a particular temporal and spatial context.

3.2. Context

Dictionaries basically list two meanings of “context”, namely that of verbal

surrounding, and that of social, political, economic or historical circumstances.

In both cases, the idea is that the context somehow influences a word, passage,

meaning or event or enables its (better) interpretation. Hence the widespread

principle that people should not be quoted “out of context” (McGlone 2005).

“Context” appears to be a crucial term in language sciences and it has

received much attention from many scholars working within the field. They give

prominence to different aspects of context, which results in the abundance of

definitions that have been proposed. Mercer (2000), for instance, defines

“context” from a sociocultural perspective, as a joint, socially constructed frame

of reference, whereas Gee (2011: 6) sees context as

the physical setting in which the communication takes place and everything in it;

the bodies, eye gaze, gestures, and movements of those present; what has

previously been said and done by those involved in the communication; any

shared knowledge those involved have, including shared cultural knowledge.