Current discourse space: cognitive representation of the three context types

, assume that engineer 2 is aware of this information, i.e. that it is common ground between them. S/he will further assume that engineer 2 can form a conceptualization of the required granularity based on the impoverished construal uttered by engineer 1. If engineer 1 assumed that this information is not available to engineer 2, s/he would have to project more context into the utterance by opting for a more specific construal such as Could you please unscrew the spark plugs from the cylinder heads of the petrol engine? This example illustrates how frames/domain matrices as the locus of encyclopaedic meaning are shaped in actual discourse to yield contextual/situated meaning. These considerations will be taken up again in the cognitive linguistic discussion of explicitation and implicitation in 6.5.2 and they will feature extensively in the discussion of results in chapter 8.

As a final step in the discussion of context in STT, I would like to introduce the cognitive linguistic notion of current discourse space (CDS), which basically describes the cognitive representation of the three previously discussed contextual dimensions from the perspective of the discourse participants. Langacker (2008:59), who introduced the current discourse space as a theoretical tool in cognitive linguistics, describes this concept as follows:

As discourse unfolds, at each step the current expression is constructed and interpreted against the background of those that have gone before. The prior discourse is a major determinant (along with context, background knowledge, etc.) of what I call the current discourse space (CDS). The CDS is a mental space comprising everything presumed to be shared by the speaker and hearer as the basis for a discourse at a given moment.

Two of our three contextual dimensions are clearly discernible in this quote. The prior discourse, which dynamically updates the current discourse space, can be equated with the discourse context, whereas the background knowledge referred to by Langacker would correspond to the knowledge context. Elsewhere in his book, Langacker (ibid.:42) speaks of the “apprehension of the physical, social, and cultural context”, thus making his notion of context broadly compatible with the situational context as understood above. Langacker (ibid.:281) stresses the dynamic character of the CDS by claiming that

21 _{More precisely, by ranking available shared bases according to their quality of evidence in order to make}

[t]he CDS is stable in many respects […], but as discourse proceeds, it is continually updated as each successive utterance is processed. At any point, the CDS provides the basis for interpreting the next utterance encountered, which modifies both its content and what is focused within it.

So, while the situational context, at least in written communication, remains reasonably stable, both discourse and knowledge context are dynamically updated in this mode of discourse. Langacker further distinguishes between three discourse frames22

With the notion of mental space (see quote from Langacker (2008:59) above), Langacker refers to a specific theory within the CL framework developed by Fauconnier (1994, 1997).

, which are those portions of the CDS that “are specifically invoked and brought to bear in the interpretation of any particular utterance” (ibid.). The previous discourse frame is the frame “invoked for interpreting the current expression” (ibid.), the current discourse frame

is “obtained by updating the previous frame in accordance with the meaning of this expression” (ibid.:282), and the anticipated discourse frame refers to that information which is expected to follow the current expression and which may also influence its interpretation (ibid.). The scope of these discourse frames seems to be rather flexible and not clearly delimited since Langacker (ibid.) claims that “[what counts as a discourse frame is relative to a particular structural phenomenon or level of organization and cannot necessarily be determined with any precision.”

23

22 _{These discourse frames are not to be confused with the frames as understood in frame semantics. While in}

frame semantics, frames refer to specific knowledge configurations tied to certain linguistic expressions, discourse frames are less dependent on specific linguistic clues and more encompassing than Fillmorean frames, “comprising everything presumed to be shared by the speaker and the hearer” (see Langacker’s quote above).

Evans/Green (2006:369) define mental spaces as “regions of conceptual space” which are constructed online and “result in unique and temporary ‘packets’ of conceptual structure, constructed for purposes specific to the ongoing discourse”. I will not elaborate in detail on mental space theory since it is primarily concerned with linguistic theory- internal issues and notoriously difficult to apply to matters of translation. Suffice it to say that mental spaces and hence the CDS (or its specific discourse frames) can be understood as dynamic conceptual configurations that provide the locus for meaning construction, for example in the form as discussed in 4.1 and 4.2.1. The input to these conceptual

23 _{Mental space theory is a specific semantic theory primarily concerned with meaning construction, as}

opposed to frame semantics and the theory of domains, which are specifically concerned with knowledge organization and representation (see 4.5.3).

configurations would be the information provided by the three contextual dimensions discussed above. The current discourse space can also be understood as the locus of the contextual shaping of frames/domain matrices and the ranking of information according to their relative saliency as illustrated in 5.3.4. The information made salient by this process of contextual shaping would then feed into the actual conceptualizations entertained by the discourse participants. The notion of CDS will be taken up again in the cognitive linguistic discussion of explicitation and implicitation in 6.5.2 and it will feature prominently in the discussion of results in chapter 8.