My research goes in two main directions:
1. Pragmatics: dynamism of meaning, formulaic language, salience
My starting point is the assumption that context is a dynamic construct that appears in different formats in language use both as a repository and/or trigger of knowledge. Consequently, context has both a selective and a constitutive role. Unlike several current theories of meaning (e.g. Barsalou 1993; Coulson 2000; Croft 2000; Evans 2006) claiming that meaning construction is mostly dependent on situational context, I argue that meaning values of words encoding prior contexts of experience play as important a role in meaning construction as situational context. These two sides of world knowledge (encoded and current) exist dialectically and relationally. Actual situation context is viewed through prior context, and the encounters of these contexts create a third space. According to this approach meaning is the result of the interplay of prior experience and current experience, which are both socio-cultural in nature.
Based on this approach I have developed a Dynamic Model of Meaning (DMM) that requires the revision of what we understand by cooperation, how we interpret common ground, how salience affects language production and comprehension, and what the role of context is in language processing.
I am also interested in the development and use of formulaic language. I focus on a particular type of prefabricated expressions that I call “situation-bound utterances (SBU)” which are highly conventionalized, pragmatic units whose occurrence is tied to standardized communicative situations. I focus on the following research questions:
What variables constrain the development and use of situation-bound utterances? Why, in a given situation, out of all possible SBUs that can be used, are only certain SBUs used? How do sentence-level and discourse-level creativity relate to each other in language production?
2. Second language acquisition and bi- and multilingualism
I am interested in the interaction of the linguistic and conceptual levels in language processing in dual- and multi-language systems and the effect of L1 on L2. A cognitive approach to SLA and multilingualism that takes into account both conceptual and linguistic factors rather than just focusing on the role of the linguistic systems reveals that a person who has a relatively high level of proficiency in two or more languages will not use either of the languages the way a monolingual speaker does. The “otherness” of bi- and multilinguals derives not from the linguistically-based means of their information processing systems but from the conceptually-based content of those systems. The research questions that I seek answer to can be summarized as follows:
How will the emerging new language with its own socio-cultural foundation affect the existing L1-governed knowledge and conceptual base of the language learner, and how this effect is reflected in the use of both languages?
How can an intake theory (dual language system) explain second language acquisition and multilingual development and language use? Is it possible to develop a firm conceptual system that consists of concepts developed through two languages? Can a partly developed concept in either L1 or L2 become firmly established in the mind if the rest of the encounters with the concept occur through a language other than the primary source?
| Home | |
| Education | Publications |
| Research Interests | My Favorite Photos |
Last update: September 3, 2008