Towards a Contextual Confluence Framework for Linguistic Meaning: A Conceptual and Integrative Review
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31185/eduj.Vol65.Iss1.5195Keywords:
Cognitive pragmatics, context, contextual confluence, cultural context, psychological impact, theory of mindAbstract
The present work is a conceptual integrative review of the concept of linguistic meaning and the different frameworks adopted by scholars in this regard. The review clearly demonstrates scholars’ shift of attention from the word and sentential level of meaning (i.e., the traditional view) to a wider scope of context, exceeding the co-text and physical context. To meet this objective, the researchers selected a number of (13) articles that address the concept of linguistic meaning differently using different frameworks. The review is limited to two focal points, the concept of linguistic meaning and the various frameworks adopted. The study has revealed that the traditional view of words and sentences as containers of meaning is no more valid. This is because meaning is seen to be a product resulted from the interplay of different types of contexts, such as the linguistic, physical, social, cultural, and conceptual context. Moreover, meaning is not limited to the verbal mode of language, but rather, it can be extended to include the non-verbal mode as well. More so, the diverse frameworks adopted imply the changeable, dynamic, collective, communicative, conceptual, inferential, encyclopedic and multimodal nature of language in general and meaning in particular. Finally, the study has revealed that it is the mental context that controls both the linguistic meaning and the contextual factors, creating ultimately this mental leap.
Downloads
References
• Al-Bahrani, R. H.. (2018). A Cognitive Linguistic Study of Silence/Pause-Based Incongruities in Selected Instances from Mind Your Language's Sitcom Series. Education College Journal, 1(30), 794-829. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31185/eduj.Vol1.Iss30.334
• Clark, H. H. & Carlson, T. B. (1982). Hearers and speech acts. Language, 58(2), 332-373. Retrieved from https://web.stanford.edu/~clark/1980s/Clark,%20H.H.%20_%20Carlson,%20T.B.%20_Hearers%20and%20speech%20acts_%201982.pdf
• Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Eragamreddy, N. (2024). Presuppositions: The hidden force shaping everyday conversations. Premise: Journal of English Education and Applied Linguistics, 13(3), 842–870. https://doi.org/10.24127/pj.v13i3.10121.
• Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and conversation. Retrieved from https://lawandlogic.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/grice1975logic-and-conversation.pdf
• Hymes, D. (1972). Foundations in Sociolinguistics. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
• Jodłowiec, M., & Piskorska, A. (2024). Dynamism of context: A case of joke interpretation. Intercultural Pragmatics, 21(3), 431–449. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2024-3006
• Naghizadeh, M. (2024). Context and metaphorical creativity: Application of pressure of coherence in metaphor diversity in Persian journalistic texts from a cognitive-semantic point of view. ZABANSHENAKHT (LANGUAGE STUDIES, 15(1), 283–315. Retrieved from https://www.sid.ir/paper/1519132/en
• Noor, N., Rashid, A., & Latif, T. (2024). A Cognitive Study of Humor: A Pragmatic and Sociocultural Approach. Linguistic Forum - A Journal of Linguistics, 6(1), 16-37. DOI: 10.53057/linfo/2024.6.1.2
• Purpura, J. E., & Oh, S. (2024). Assessing the linguistic resources of meaningful communication. In A. J. Kunnan (Ed.), The concise companion to language assessment (pp. 181–204). Retrieved from https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=-qMp9_0AAAAJ&citation_for_view=-qMp9_0AAAAJ:LkGwnXOMwfcC
• Rahardi, R. K. & Firdaus, W. (2024). Pragmatic Meanings of Visual Socio-Political Multimodal discourse in the Perspective of Critical Pragmatics. Kandai, 20(2), 153-174. Retrieved from https://ojs.badanbahasa.kemendikdasmen.go.id/jurnal/index.php/kandai/article/view/6604/2326
• Saeed, J. I. (2003). Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
• Sardinha, T. B (2024). AI-generated vs. human-authored texts: A multidimensional comparison. Applied Corpus Linguistics, 4(1). Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2666799123000436?via%3Dihub
• Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
• Spiess, O. (2024). Metapragmatic markers and the instantiation of pragmatic frames: A cognitive-linguistic approach to the problem of current discourse. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 12(1), 35-72. DOI: 10.1515/gcla-2024-0003
• Tariq, M. Z. & Al-Bahrani, R. H. (2019). The Applicability of Attardo's Set-up, Incongruity, Resolution Model on Unintentional Incongruities. Education College Journal, 1(34), 571-592. Retrieved from https://eduj.uowasit.edu.iq/index.php/eduj/en/article/view/817/654
• Yin, H. & Pickering, M. J. (2026). Predicting words across languages depends on language context: Evidence from visual world eye-tracking. Journal of Memory and Language, 146, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2025.104701
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 ا.د. نريمان جبار رشيد، أ.م.د. رنا حميد البحراني

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.


