1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Pragmatics
  4. Volume 34, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 34, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper aims to examine the realisation of suggestions in authoritative academic discourse through the lens of cognitive pragmatics. To date, the majority of academic suggestion research has focused on face-to-face interactions in an institutional context. However, other forms of suggesting, namely the written forms of academic suggestions have not yet been sufficiently explored. Thus, there is a knowledge gap when it comes to authoritative academic suggestions directed to policy makers. Such policy maker-directed suggestions are always bound and embedded in particular cultural contexts. As a case study, we explore the suggestions in authoritative academic discourse with the focus on illocutionary force indicating devices (IFIDs) and relevant construal strategies. Our data were drawn from the , an important manifestation of authoritative academic discourse in China. The findings indicate that three types of IFIDs are deployed to delimit Chinese authoritative academic suggestions, among which conventionalised and indirect IFIDs are preferred. Notably IFID tools pertain to speakers’ choices of construal strategies for building up the infrastructure of suggestions. The operation of these strategies reveals how authoritative academic suggestions are internally coded, as well as how they are built to externally act on. Furthermore, we argue that the speakers’ choices of construal strategies imply a degree of politeness. The study may shed light upon speech act and politeness research in Chinese linguaculture.

© 2024 International Pragmatics Association
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.22022.li
2023-05-15
2024-10-05

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/prag.22022.li
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Alston, William P.
    1994 “Illocutionary Acts and Linguistic Meaning.” InFoundations of Speech Act Theory: Philosophical and Linguistic Perspectives, ed. bySavas L. Tsohatzidis, 29–49. London/New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Austin, John L.
    1962 How to Do Things with Words: The William James Lectures Delivered at Harvard University in 1955. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Austin, Paddy
    1990 “Politeness Revisited – The Dark Side.” InNew Zealand Ways of Speaking English, ed. byAllan Bell, and Janet Holmes, 277–293. Clevedon/Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Bach, Kent, and Robert M. Harnish
    1979 Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge/London: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bakhtin, Mikhail M.
    1981 The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Texas: University of Texas Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Banerjee, Janet, and Patricia L. Carrell
    1988 “Tuck in Your Shirt, You Squid: Suggestions in ESL.” Language Learning38 (3): 313–364. 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1988.tb00416.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1988.tb00416.x [Google Scholar]
  7. Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen, and Beverly S. Hartford
    1996 “Input in an Institutional Setting.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition18 (2): 171–188. 10.1017/S027226310001487X
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310001487X [Google Scholar]
  8. Bresnahan, Mary
    1992 “The Effects of Advisor Style on Overcoming Client Resistance in the Advising Interview”. Discourse Processes15 (2): 229–247. 10.1080/01638539209544810
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539209544810 [Google Scholar]
  9. Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson
    1987 Politeness: Some Universals of Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  10. Christensen, Johan
    2018 “Economic Knowledge and the Scientization of Policy Advice.” Policy Sciences51 (3): 291–311. 10.1007/s11077‑018‑9316‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-018-9316-6 [Google Scholar]
  11. DeCapua, Andrea, and Joan Findlay Dunham
    2012 “‘It Wouldn’t Hurt If You Had Your Child Evaluated’: Advice to Mothers in Responses.” InAdvice in Discourse, ed. byMiriam A. Locher, and Holger Limberg, 73–96. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/pbns.221.06dec
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.221.06dec [Google Scholar]
  12. DeCapua, Andrea, and Lisa Huber
    1995 “‘If I Were You…’: Advice in American English.” Multilingua14 (2): 117–132. 10.1515/mult.1995.14.2.117
     https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.1995.14.2.117 [Google Scholar]
  13. Dinsmore, John
    1991 Partitioned Representations. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑3574‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3574-0 [Google Scholar]
  14. Fauconnier, Gilles
    1985 Mental Spaces: Aspect of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Reprinted 1994, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Gibbs, Raymond W.
    1980 “Spilling the Beans on Understanding and Memory for Idioms in Conversation.” Memory & Cognition8 (2): 149–156. 10.3758/BF03213418
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213418 [Google Scholar]
  16. Gillingham, Philip
    2019 “From Bureaucracy to Technocracy in a Social Welfare Agency: A Cautionary Tale.” Asia Pacific Journal of Social Work and Development29 (2): 108–119. 10.1080/02185385.2018.1523023
     https://doi.org/10.1080/02185385.2018.1523023 [Google Scholar]
  17. Gizzi, Michael C., and Stefan Rädiker
    eds. 2021 The Practice of Qualitative Data Analysis: Research Examples Using MAXQDA. Berlin: MAXQDA Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Goldsmith, Daena J.
    2004 Communicating Social Support. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511606984
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511606984 [Google Scholar]
  19. Goldsmith, Daena J., and Kristine Fitch
    1997 “The Normative Context of Advice as Social Support.” Human Communication Research23 (4): 454–476. 10.1111/j.1468‑2958.1997.tb00406.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1997.tb00406.x [Google Scholar]
  20. Gu, Edward, and Merle Goldman
    2004 “Introduction: The Transformation of the Relationship between Chinese Intellectuals and the State.” InChinese Intellectuals between State and Market, ed. byEdward X. Gu, and Merle Goldman, 1–18. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203422113_INTRODUCTION
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203422113_INTRODUCTION [Google Scholar]
  21. Graumann, Carl F., and Michael C. Sommer
    1988 “Perspective Structure in Language Production and Comprehension.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology7 (3–4): 193–212. 10.1177/0261927X8800700404
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X8800700404 [Google Scholar]
  22. Edmondson, Willis J., and Juliane House
    1981 Let’s Talk, and Talk about It: A Pedagogic Interactional Grammar of English. München: Urban & Schwarzenberg.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Hámori, Ágnes
    2010 “Illocutionary Force, Salience and Attention Management – A Social Cognitive Pragmatic Perspective.” Acta Linguistica Hungarica57 (1): 53–74. 10.1556/ALing.57.2010.1.3
     https://doi.org/10.1556/ALing.57.2010.1.3 [Google Scholar]
  24. He, Shanhua, and Tiaoyuan Mao
    2020 “Can the Research on Language Planning Be Also Planned?: Recent Academia-Government Interactions In China.” Current Issues in Language Planning21 (4): 434–453. 10.1080/14664208.2020.1744318
     https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2020.1744318 [Google Scholar]
  25. Henricson, Sofie, and Marie Nelson
    2017 “Giving and Receiving Advice in Higher Education. Comparing Sweden-Swedish and Finland-Swedish Supervision Meetings.” Journal of Pragmatics1091: 105–120. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.12.013
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.12.013 [Google Scholar]
  26. Higuchi, Koichi
    2016 KH Coder 3 Reference Manual. Kioto (Japan): Ritsumeikan University.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Hyland, Ken
    2005 “Stance and Engagement: A Model of Interaction in Academic Discourse.” Discourse Studies7 (2): 173–192. 10.1177/1461445605050365
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365 [Google Scholar]
  28. 2011 “Academic Discourse.” InContinuum Companion to Discourse Analysis, ed. byKen Hyland, and Brian Paltridge, 171–184. London: Continuum.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Hyland, Ken, and Fiona Hyland
    2012 “‘You Could Make This Clearer’: Teachers’ Advice on ESL Academic Writing.” InAdvice in Discourse, ed. byMiriam A. Locher, and Holger Limberg, 53–71. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/pbns.221.05hyl
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.221.05hyl [Google Scholar]
  30. Jackson, Peter M.
    2007 “Making Sense of Policy Advice.” Public Money and Management27 (4): 257–264. 10.1111/j.1467‑9302.2007.00592.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9302.2007.00592.x [Google Scholar]
  31. Kuckartz, Udo
    2014 Qualitative Text Analysis: A Guide to Methods, Practice and Using Software. London: Sage. 10.4135/9781446288719
     https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446288719 [Google Scholar]
  32. Kuno, Susumu
    1987 Functional Syntax: Anaphora, Discourse and Empathy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Lakoff, George
    1987 Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  34. Langacker, Ronald W.
    1990 “Subjectification.” Cognitive Linguistics1 (1): 5–38. 10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.5
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.5 [Google Scholar]
  35. 1994 Concept, Image and Symbol. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. 2001 “Discourse in Cognitive Grammar.” Cognitive Linguistics12 (2): 143–188. 10.1515/cogl.12.2.143
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.12.2.143 [Google Scholar]
  37. 2008 Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  38. Li, Eden Sum-hung
    2010 “Making Suggestions: A Contrastive Study of Young Hong Kong and Australian Students.” Journal of Pragmatics42 (3): 598–616. 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.07.014
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.07.014 [Google Scholar]
  39. Li, Qun, and Fawen Yu
    2019 Blue Book of Ecological Governance. Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Limberg, Holger
    2010 The Interactional Organization of Academic Talk: Office Hour Consultations. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.198
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.198 [Google Scholar]
  41. Liu, Fengguang, Shi, Wenrui, and Yaochen Deng
    2019 “A Contrastive Study of Chinese and American Political Speech Act of Advising – Taking Diplomatic Discourse as an Example.” Foreign Language Education401: 44–50.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Locher, Miriam A.
    2006 Advice Online. Advice-giving in an American Internet Health Column. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.149
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.149 [Google Scholar]
  43. Marín-Arrese, Juana I.
    2011 “Epistemic Legitimizing Strategies, Commitment and Accountability in Discourse.” Discourse Studies13 (6): 789–797. 10.1177/1461445611421360c
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445611421360c [Google Scholar]
  44. Martínez-Flor, Alicia
    2005 “A Theoretical Review of the Speech Act of Suggesting: Towards a Taxonomy for Its Use in FLT.” Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses181: 167–187. 10.14198/raei.2005.18.08
     https://doi.org/10.14198/raei.2005.18.08 [Google Scholar]
  45. Nuyts, Jan
    1993 “Epistemic Modal Adverbs and Adjectives and the Layered Representation of Conceptual and Linguistic Structure.” Linguistics31 (5): 933–96. 10.1515/ling.1993.31.5.933
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1993.31.5.933 [Google Scholar]
  46. 2004 “The Cognitive-Pragmatic Approach.” Intercultural Pragmatics1 (1): 135–149. 10.1515/iprg.2004.003
     https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2004.003 [Google Scholar]
  47. Papafragou, Anna
    2000 “On Speech-Act Modality.” Journal of Pragmatics32 (5): 519–538. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(99)00062‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00062-4 [Google Scholar]
  48. Pattyn, Valérie, Sonja Blum, Ellen Fobé, Mirjam Pekar-Milicevic, and Marleen Brans
    2022 “Academic Policy Advice in Consensus-Seeking Countries: The Cases of Belgium and Germany.” International Review of Administrative Sciences88 (1): 26–42. 10.1177/0020852319878780
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852319878780 [Google Scholar]
  49. Pollitt, Christopher
    2006 “Academic Advice to Practitioners – What Is Its Nature, Place and Value Within Academia?” Public Money and Management26 (4): 257–264. 10.1111/j.1467‑9302.2006.00534.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9302.2006.00534.x [Google Scholar]
  50. Sanders, José, and Gisela Redeker
    1996 “Perspective and the Representation of Speech and Thought in Narrative Discourse.” InSpaces, Worlds, and Grammar, ed. byGilles Fauconnier, and Eve Sweetser, 290–317. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Sanders, José, and Wilbert Spooren
    1997 “Perspective, Subjectivity, and Modality from a Cognitive Linguistic Point of View.” InDiscourse and Perspective in Cognitive Linguistics, ed. byWolf-Andreas Liebert, Gisela Redeker, and Linda R. Waugh. Amsterdam: John Benjamins publishing Company. 10.1075/cilt.151.08san
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.151.08san [Google Scholar]
  52. Sbisà, Marina
    2001 “Illocutionary Force and Degrees of Strength in Language Use.” Journal of Pragmatics33 (12): 1791–1814. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(00)00060‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00060-6 [Google Scholar]
  53. Schmid, Hans-Jörg
    2012 Cognitive Pragmatics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110214215
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214215 [Google Scholar]
  54. Searle, John 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]
  55. 1976 “The Classification of Illocutionary Acts.” Language in Society5 (1): 1–24. 10.1017/S0047404500006837
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500006837 [Google Scholar]
  56. Sharoff, Serge, Reinhard Rapp, Pierre Zweigenbaum, and Pascale Fung
    2013 Building and Using Comparable Corpora. Berlin: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑642‑20128‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20128-8 [Google Scholar]
  57. Stadler, Stefanie Alexa
    2011 “Coding Speech Acts for Their Degree of Explicitness.” Journal of Pragmatics43 (1): 36–50. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.014
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.014 [Google Scholar]
  58. Sweetser, Eve
    1990 From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620904
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620904 [Google Scholar]
  59. Taguchi, Naoko, Loretta Fernández, and Yuechun Jiang
    2021 “Systemic Functional Linguistics Applied to Analyze L2 Speech Acts: Analysis of Advice-giving in a Written Text.” InNew Directions in Second Language Pragmatics, ed. byJ. César Félix-Brasdefer, and Rachel L. Shively, 27–57. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110721775‑006
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110721775-006 [Google Scholar]
  60. Talmy, Leonard
    1988 “Force Dynamics in Language and Cognition.” Cognitive Science12 (1): 49–100. 10.1207/s15516709cog1201_2
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1201_2 [Google Scholar]
  61. van Dijk, Teun A.
    1977 “Pragmatic Macro-structures in Discourse and Cognition.” Retrieved from: https://discourses.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Teun-A.-van-Dijk-1997-Pragmatic-macrostructures-in-discourse-and-cognition.pdf
  62. Vehviläinen, Sanna
    2009 “Student-initiated Advice in Academic Supervision.” Research on Language and Social Interaction42 (2): 163–190. 10.1080/08351810902864560
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810902864560 [Google Scholar]
  63. Verhagen, Arie
    2007 “Construal and Perspectivisation.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, ed. byDirk Geeraerts, and Hubert Cuyckens, 48–81. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Weisser, Martin
    2010 “Annotating Dialogue Corpora Semi-automatically: A Corpus-linguistic Approach to Pragmatics.” Unpublished Post-doctoral Dissertation, University of Bayreuth.
  65. Wiebe, Janyce
    1990 “Identifying Subjective Characters in Narrative.” InProceedings of COLING 90, 401–406. Retrieved from: https://aclanthology.org/C90-2069.pdf. 10.3115/997939.998008
     https://doi.org/10.3115/997939.998008 [Google Scholar]
  66. Wu, Shuqiong, and Jing Huo
    2016 “A Cognitive Research of No-Subject Sentences in Chinese Legislative Texts.” Foreign Language and Literature Studies331: 266–271.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Zha, Qiang
    2012 “Intellectuals, Academic Freedom, and University Autonomy in China.” InUniversity Governance and Reform. Policy, Fads, and Experience in International Perspective, ed. byHans G. Schuetze, William Bruneau, and Garnet Grosjean, 209–224. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9781137040107_14
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137040107_14 [Google Scholar]
  68. Zhao, Shouhui, and Guowen Shang
    2016 “Language Planning Agency in China: From the Perspective of the Language Academies.” Current Issues in Language Planning17 (1): 23–35. 10.1080/14664208.2015.1094386
     https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2015.1094386 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/prag.22022.li
Loading
Delving into suggestion speech acts in Chinese authoritative academic discourse
Pragmatics 34, 161 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.22022.li
/content/journals/10.1075/prag.22022.li
/content/journals/10.1075/prag.22022.li
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): authoritative academic discourse; China; cognitive pragmatics; politeness; suggestions

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