Etapas migratorias México-Estados Unidos y la presencia del mundo jarocho

In connection to Smith’s (2018) illustration of the first and the second levels of meaning (literal and pragmatic/textual), one way of referring to meaning is in its relation to language, as commonly people express their ideas, thoughts and feelings through language when making sense of the world around them. Words symbolise one’s thoughts to the referent (what a person refers to) (Ogden & Richards, 1945), and hence represent meaning. Some studies of meaning in language refer to the

associations between individuals’ psychological responses to words (Szalay & Deese, 1978).

Osgood (1952) developed an empirical measurement of meaning known as the Semantic Differential (SD). Using this, meaning was measured through “people’s reactions to stimulus words and concepts in terms of ratings on bipolar scales defined with contrasting adjectives at each end” (Heise, 1970, p. 235). According to an

example given by Osgood (1964), individuals rated a series of given concepts (such as

‘my mother’, ‘modern art’ and so on) against a 7-point scale with contrasting words, for example, good – bad (evaluative component), strong – weak (strength/potency component), and fast – slow (activity component). Scores were then obtained and used in various ways to generate the correlation between variables (that is, across

participants or across concepts). Evaluating the associations between a word judged by a person and its referred concept, therefore, can examine the subjective meanings of words. Meaning in this sense is semantically expressed through cognitive systems that have “layers of representations and processes” (Nelson, 1985, p.9) as a form of

language.

Research on language-based meaning constructions has also been widely conducted in the field of psycholinguistics with the notion that “a central question within

psycholinguistics is where sentences get their meaning” (Johnson & Goldberg, 2013, p. 1439). Under this discipline, the complex associations between linguistics, learning (behavioural) and information processes (cognitive) tend to be analysed by looking at language comprehension and production mechanisms (Garnham, Garrod, & Sanford, 2006). The focus here has been on, for example, phrasal constructions and meanings (Johnson & Goldberg, 2013), counterfactual dual meaning (Kulakova & Nieuwland,

2016), and ellipsis in sentences and recovery of meaning (Phillips & Parker, 2014).

However, psycholinguistics has gradually changed, conceptualising language

constructions in a dialogical viewpoint that aims to consider its “inherently interactive and contextualized” (Garnham et al., 2006, p.9) association with meaning, rather than in monologue, which examines “the structure of isolated, decontextualized sentences that are used in texts or speeches” (p. 9).

In addition to extensive studies on meaning in relation to language constructions, more and more psychological studies have been conducted which look at the connections between mental activities and the outside world. Research employing cognitive disciplines typically examines individuals’ appraisal or adjustment processes which associate with meaning constructions.

As an example, Park and Folkman (1997) introduced a meaning-making model which looks at three main factors: appraisal of meaning, searching for meaning, and the end results of meaning making (meaning made). Based on this model, Park and Blumberg (2002) assessed reappraisal processing as an underlying cognitive process of meaning making. Reappraisal is understood as an important process in adjusting “the

relationships of intrusion and avoidance” or in resolving “discrepancies between people’s previously held beliefs and current situations that they appraise as violating those beliefs” (p. 600). The authors employed a series of measurements, including a four-day writing task, where a traumatic encounter was examined as a part of

reappraisal processing. Fifty-seven undergraduate students (mean age 19.5) completed all the tasks given. The overall results showed that during the four days of writing, increased levels of understanding and accepting events in given narratives were found.

It also showed that perception of an appraised traumatic experience became less stressful, less threatening, and less central over time. A decreased level of cognitive processing was also demonstrated, which suggests an association in promoting health outcomes. Meaning embedded within traumatic experience, therefore, can possibly be reconstructed positively through writing or disclosure.

In terms of cognitive processing, meaning-making processes have been examined extensively (Park, 2010) by assessing specific cognitive functions. These include selective attention (Chajut & Algom, 2003), problem sensing composed of “noticing,

interpreting, and incorporating stimuli” (Kiesler & Sproull, 1982, p. 550), and perceived self-efficacy that is “a judgment of capability to execute given types of performances” (Bandura, 2006, p. 309). Under such cognitive disciplines, the role of meaning appears to be assessed as reflected outcomes of cognitive performances.

Meaning needs cognitive systems (Dietrich & Markman, 2003) in order to manifest interpretation and expression of beliefs, desires, and purposes, which further have an influence on one’s relational actions towards others and the social world. In a stressful situation that one might encounter in society, for example, one may need to examine cognitive consistency or dissonance (Festinger, Riecken, & Schachter, 1956/2009;

Gawronski, 2012) as to find a way of coping (Thoits, 2011). This suggests an

influential linkage between self-value, or to refer to the meaning quintet (Vos, 2018), the self-oriented types of meaning (e.g., self-efficacy and self-acceptance), and the social types of meaning that have underlying value of, for example, “being connected with others”, and “belonging to a specific community” (p. 68).

In terms of the development of studies into meaning, Bruner (1990) said that ways of

“construct[ing] a mental science around the concept of meaning and the processes by which meanings are created and negotiated within a community” (p. 11) is important.

Correspondingly, anunderstanding of the role of meaning in various social contexts, including social identity constructions (Beaumont, 2009; Schoklitsch & Baumann, 2012) and the meaning of life has gained growing attention in the field of psychology of meaning (see Markman et al., 2013: Wong, 2012).

Baumeister (1991) emphasises that “meaning has to be imposed on life” (p.4) and talks about the four needs for meaning – purpose, value, efficacy and self-worth –

suggesting that meaning can be manifested through them, and that these are the four basic needs for a person to make satisfactory sense of their life.

Schnell and Becker (2006) similarly point to sources of meanings and identified 26 sources in four dimensions, such as ‘social commitment’ and ‘generativity’ in self-transcendence, ‘achievement’ and ‘creativity’ in self-actualisation, ‘reason’ and

‘morality’ in order, and ‘harmony’ and ‘fun’ in well-being and community. They then developed the Sources of Meaning and Meaningfulness Questionnaire (SoMe). Their

study shows an association between personality and sources of meanings. Although the need for further clarification of SoMe was addressed, their study demonstrated a predictability of which individuals who have strong dimensional associations with self-transcendence are inclined to ‘experience their lives as meaningful’ (p.117).

More recently, Schnell, Hoge and Pollet (2013) examined the association between meaning and work. They looked at ‘coherence’ (e.g., of a person’s self-concept and the role assigned at work), ‘direction’ (e.g., directions and orientation provided by ‘values and norms’), ‘significance’ (e.g., the perceived efficacy/belief of one’s actions, both as a general expectation and a context-related perception), and ‘belonging’ (e.g., a sense of connectedness) as four key perceptional components that can be associated with “a sense of meaningfulness” (p.546) in work. They applied a series of different scales, including an adapted version of SoMe, and analysed subjective “appraisals of different work contexts” (p.550). Their study found the common notion that meaning in one’s work is highly personal and multifaceted. Nevertheless, the results revealed an important association between self-efficacy and work-role, in that a compatibility between the work one does and the personally perceived belief (desire) towards work experiences has a positive meaning. Additionally, through assessments of individuals appraising their perceptions towards their social environments, self-efficacy is found to be a predictor of meaning in work. The study demonstrates an aspect of meaning that is a manifestation of personal beliefs and personal experiences in a social context.

Belief (cognition) and meaning are importantly interrelated, and they also have an influence on the ways in which internal and external worlds are connected, since

“every action that we take is grounded in an elaborate web of beliefs and goals”

(Tullett et al., 2013, p. 401). In this sense, people take actions based on what they believe to be important, having a sense of purpose that has “emergent properties of long-term social interactions” (Peterson, 1999, p. 75). Conversely, when one’s beliefs become shuttered or violated, this can affect intrapersonal as well as interpersonal relationships.

Interestingly, Baumeister (1991) expresses the point that purposes can be divided into conceptually different features: goals (extrinsic purposes), and fulfilments (intrinsic purposes). The former refers to “desired, possible future circumstances” and the latter

to “desired, possible future subjective states” (p. 34), meaning positive feelings. As with Baumeister’s four needs for meaning, purpose and belief (efficacy) are suggested to be necessary for a person to find meaning. Meaning therefore has internal and external features that coexist in making sense of the self in the world.

Both cognitive and social aspects of meaning show the dynamic functions and structures that meaning is manifested in and by. Meaning has both processes and qualities that importantly interweave in one’s sense making in the world. Socially-oriented psychological research that looks at meaning beyond specific cognitive processes has tended to use approaches that have been developed under social cognition paradigms (Taylor, 1983).