Advertisement

Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 169–183 | Cite as

But language too is material!

  • Rasmus Gahrn-AndersenEmail author
Article

Abstract

Language is infused with materiality and should therefore not be considered as an abstract system that is isolated from socio-material reality. Expressions materialise language in social practices, thus providing the necessary basis for languaging activities. For this reason, it makes sense to challenge proponents of orthodox linguistics and others who hold that language can be studied in isolation from its concrete manifestations. By exploring the relation between materiality and linguistic activity, the article extends Malafouris’ Material Engagement Theory (MET) while clarifying the phenomenon of ‘linguistic denotation’. In so doing, it critiques orthodox approaches to language which trace denotation to abstract meanings and/or mental representations. The article shows how the denotative aspects of language can be cashed out in non-representational terms and, furthermore, that the interrelation of denotation and materiality is crucial to human material culture in that it allows for material engagements to transcend localised contexts. These engagements become global in Latour’s sense and, in so doing, denotation ceases to demand descriptions in terms of representations.

Keywords

Language Materiality Linguistic denotation Phenomenology Distributed language 

References

  1. Bråten, S. (2009). The intersubjective mirror in infant learning and evolution of speech (vol. 76, advances in consciousness research). Amsterdam: John Benjamin’s Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Cowley, S. J. (2011). Distributed language. In S. Cowley (Ed.), Distributed language (pp. 1–14). Amsterdam: John Benjamin’s Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cowley, S. J. (2014). Linguistic embodiment and verbal constraints: Human cognition and the scales of time. Frontiers in Psychology.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01085.
  5. Cowley, S. J. (2015). Verbal patterns: Taming cognitive biology. In E. Velmezova, K. Kull, & S. J. Cowley (Eds.), Biosemiotic perspectives on language and linguistics (pp. 123–150). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cowley, S. J., & Gahrn-Andersen, R. (2015). Deflating autonomy: Human interactivity in the emerging social world. Intellectica, 63, 37–48.Google Scholar
  7. Cummins, F. (2013). Towards an enactive account of action: Speaking and joint speaking as exemplary domains. Adaptive Behavior, 21(3), 178–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Deleuze, G. (2004). Difference and repetition. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  9. Fodor, J. (1975). The language of thought. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Fowler, C. (2010). Embodied, embedded language use. Ecological Psychology, 22, 286–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Frege, G. (1948). Sense and reference. The Philosophical Review, 57(3), 209–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gahrn-Andersen, R., & Cowley, S. J. (2017). Phenomenology & sociality: How extended normative perturbations give rise to social agency. Intellectica, 67, 379–398.Google Scholar
  13. Gallagher, S. (2011). Strong interaction and self-agency. Humana.Mente, 15, 55–76.Google Scholar
  14. Grice, H. P. (1969). Utterer’s meaning and intention. Philosophical Review, 78(2), 147–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harris, R. (1981). The language myth. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
  16. Harris, R. (1998). Introduction to integrational linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  17. Heidegger, M. (1982). On the way to language. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  18. Heidegger, M. (1998). Letter on “humanism”. In W. McNeill (Ed.), Pathmarks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Heidegger, M. (2001). The thing. In A. Hofstadter (trans.), Poetry, language, thought (pp. 161–184). New York: HarperCollins Publishers.Google Scholar
  20. Heidegger, M. (2010). Logic: The question concerning truth. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Kravchenko, A. (2011). The experiential basis of speech and writing. In S. Cowley (Ed.), Distributed language (pp. 33–56). Amsterdam: John Benjamin’s Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lassiter, C. (2016). Aristotle and distributed language: Capacity, matter, structure, and languaging. Language Sciences, 53, 8–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Latour, B. (1996). On Interobjectivity. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3(4), 228–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Linell, P. (1982). The written language bias in linguistics. (vol. 2, Studies in communication). Linköping: University of Linköping.Google Scholar
  25. Linell, P. (2001). Approaching dialogue (vol. 3, Impact: Studies in language and society). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  26. Linell, P. (2005). The written language bias in linguistics: Its nature, origins and transformations. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Linell, P. (2013). Distributed language theory, with or without dialogue. Language Sciences, 40, 168–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Love, N. (2004). Cognition and the language myth. Language Sciences, 26, 525–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Love, N. (2017). On languaging and languages. Language Sciences, 61, 113–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Malafouris, L. (2013). How things shape the mind: A theory of material engagement. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Malafouris, L. (2014). Creative thinging: The feeling of and for clay. Pragmatics & Cognition, 22(1), 140–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Maturana, H. R. (1988). Reality: The search for objectivity or the quest for a compelling argument. Irish Journal of Psychology, 9(1), 25–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Merleau-Ponty, M. (2010). Phenomenology of perception. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Noë, A. (2006). Experience of the world in time. Analysis, 66(1), 26–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Poulet, G. (1969). Phenomenology of reading. New Literary History, 1(1), 53–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Saussure, F. (1916). Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
  37. Searle, J. (1992). The rediscovery of mind. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  38. Steffensen, S. V. (2013). Human interactivity: Problem-solving, solution-probing and verbal patterns in the wild. In S. Cowley & F. Vallée-Tourangeau (Eds.), Cognition beyond the brain. London: Springer.Google Scholar
  39. Steffensen, S. V. (2015). Distributed language and dialogism: Notes on non-locality, sensemaking and interactivity. Language Sciences, 50, 105–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Steffensen, S. V., & Fill, A. (2014). Ecolinguistics: The state of the art and future horizons. Language Sciences, 41, 6–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tønnesen, M. (2015). Umwelt and language. In E. Velmezova, K. Kull, & S. J. Cowley (Eds.), Biosemiotic perspectives on language and linguistics (pp. 77–96). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Trevarthen, C. (1979). Communication and cooperation in early infancy: A description of primary intersubjectivity. In M. Bullowa (Ed.), Before speech: The beginning of interpersonal communication (pp. 321–348). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Trevarthen, C. (1993). The function of emotions in early infant communication and development. In J. Nadel & L. Camaioni (Eds.), New perspectives in early communicative development (pp. 48–81). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Wetzel, L. (2009). Types and tokens: On abstract objects. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wittgenstein, L. (2009). Philosophical investigations (4th ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Marketing and ManagementUniversity of Southern DenmarkOdenseDenmark

Personalised recommendations