1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Cognitive Linguistic Studies
  4. Volume 13, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 13, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2213-8722
  • E-ISSN: 2213-8730
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

The main thrust of the contribution of this study is to demonstrate not only the ubiquity and pervasiveness of conceptual metonymy and metaphor in producing and understanding illocutionary acts, i.e., speech acts, but also to account for this observation by explicating the roles of various folk models such as Action, Talk, and Embodiment.

The paper maintains that folk models (i.e., cultural models/cognitive schemas intersubjectively shared by a social group) impact grammatical structures and usages and, in themselves, constitute a basis for associative and analogical reasoning, i.e., they give rise to conceptual metonymies and metaphors.

The first part of the paper accounts for indirect speech act data with reference to scenarios constructed for three types of illocutionary acts: directives, commissives, and expressives. After providing cultural and linguistic evidence of the psychological validity of the folk model of Action (vs. Talk), an Action Scenario is developed, which forms the basis of the speech act models. The conceptual structure proposed for Illocutionary Scenarios consists of components termed the Before, Core, Result, and After. All indirect speech acts, we maintain, come about by means of constructing utterances that instantiate (or refer to) non-Core components of the model, which are exploited metonymically to index a target (Core) meaning.

In the second part of the paper, we focus on the Core component of commissives, declarations, and expressives as manifested in utterances expressing bodily movements and acts of transfer and possession. Such “explicit embodied performatives” rely on a folk model of communication called the Transfer Model of Communication. Interestingly, embodied performatives are indeed figurative; however, they are not felt to be indirect.

The paper concludes with questions for future research: (i) What kind of pragmatic constraints operate on the deployment of indirect speech acts? and (ii) Which speech act types are realizable via explicit embodied performatives?

© 2026 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00141.pan
2026-04-17
2026-05-11

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00141.pan
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Austin, J. L.
    (1962) How to do things with words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Barcelona, A.
    (2015) Metonymy. InE. Dąbrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 143–167). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110292022‑008
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110292022-008 [Google Scholar]
  3. (2023) Metonymy-guided discourse inferencing: A qualitative study. Lublin Studies in Modern Languages and Literature, 47(2), 11–29. 10.17951/lsmll.2023.47.2.11‑29
     https://doi.org/10.17951/lsmll.2023.47.2.11-29 [Google Scholar]
  4. Depraetere, I., & Kaltenböck, G.
    (2023) Hedged performatives in spoken American English: A discourse-oriented analysis. Journal of English Linguistics, 51(3), 207–235. 10.1177/00754242231173419
     https://doi.org/10.1177/00754242231173419 [Google Scholar]
  5. Fraser, B.
    (1975) Hedged performatives. InP. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Volume 3: Speech acts (pp. 44–66). New York: Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004368811_008
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_008 [Google Scholar]
  6. Grice, H. P.
    (1975) Logic and conversation. InP. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Volume 3: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004368811_003
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003 [Google Scholar]
  7. von Humboldt, W.
    (1836) Über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues und ihren Einfluss auf die geistige Entwicklung des Menschengeschlechts [On the diversity of human language structure and its influence on the development of human intelligence]. Berlin: Königliche Akademie der Wissenschaften.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Littlemore, J.
    (2015) Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781107338814
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107338814 [Google Scholar]
  9. Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G.
    (1998) Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 37–78. 10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.37
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.37 [Google Scholar]
  10. Panther, K.-U.
    (2016) How to encode and infer linguistic actions. Chinese Semiotic Studies, 12(2), 177–214. 10.1515/css‑2016‑0018
     https://doi.org/10.1515/css-2016-0018 [Google Scholar]
  11. (2022) Introduction to cognitive pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/clip.4
     https://doi.org/10.1075/clip.4 [Google Scholar]
  12. (2023) Metaphor and metonymy in indirect speech acts. InT. F. Li (Ed.), Handbook of cognitive semantics (pp. 206–238). Leiden: Brill.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Panther, K.-U., & Radden, G.
    (2011) Introduction: Reflections on motivation revisited. InK.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Motivation in grammar and the lexicon (pp. 1–26). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.27.02pan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.27.02pan [Google Scholar]
  14. Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L.
    (1998) A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(6), 755–769. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00028‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00028-9 [Google Scholar]
  15. (2003) Metonymies as natural inference and activation schemas: The case of dependent clauses as independent speech acts. InK.-U. Panther & L. L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (pp. 127–147). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.113.10pan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.113.10pan [Google Scholar]
  16. (2012) Antonymy in language structure and use. In: M. Brdar, I. Raffaelli & M. Žic Fuchs (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics between universality and variation (pp. 161–188). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. (2019) Figurative reasoning in hedged performatives. InM. Bolognesi, M. Brdar & K. Despot (Eds.). Metaphor and metonymy in the digital age: Theory and methods for building repositories of figurative language (pp. 175–198). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/milcc.8.08pan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/milcc.8.08pan [Google Scholar]
  18. Rossfour, P.
    (2013) The supreme bloody joker. Bloomington: Booktango.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Searle, J. R.
    (1969) Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  20. (1975) Indirect speech acts. InP. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Volume 3: Speech acts (pp. 59–82). New York: Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004368811_004
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_004 [Google Scholar]
  21. (1976) A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5(1), 1–23. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4166848
     [Google Scholar]
  22. (1989) How performatives work. Linguistics and philosophy, 12(5), 535–558. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25001359
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Searle, J. R., & Vanderveken, D.
    (1985) Foundations of illocutionary logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Thornburg, L. L., & Panther, K.-U.
    (1997) Speech act metonymies. InW.-A. Liebert, G. Redeker & L. R. Waugh (Eds.), Discourse and perspective in cognitive linguistics (pp. 205–222). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.151.14tho
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.151.14tho [Google Scholar]
  25. Whorf, B. L.
    (1956) Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. New York: The Technology Press of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology & John Wiley and Sons.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Zakkou, J.
    (2018) The cancellability test for conversational implicatures. Philosophical Compass, 12(12), e12552. 10.1111/phc3.12552
     https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12552 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00141.pan
Loading
Modeling figuration in speech acts
Cognitive Linguistic Studies 13, 47 (2026); https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00141.pan
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00141.pan
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00141.pan
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): conceptual metaphor; conceptual metonymy; embodied performative; folk model; illocutionary scenario; transfer model of communication

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error