1887
image of Delineating how PCIs develop
into GCIs from a cognition-pragmatics
diachronic perspective
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The Gricean GCI-PCI divide has long been questioned in linguistic pragmatics. Taking Chinese in the CCL corpus as the case, the present study proposes the cognition-pragmatics diachronic model to examine Grice’s GCI-PCI divide. It is found that with the frequency of repeated usage increasing over time, PCIs develop into GCIs; these two types of conversational implicatures are not easily divided. Semantic change from PCIs to GCIs is a dynamic process of cognition from individual entrenchment to collective conventionalization. By schematization and categorization, the former gradually builds an individual’s knowledge network with many entrenched PCI nodes, while the latter is reflected as sharing some parts of the individual’s knowledge network in the collective minds, i.e., the community’s knowledge network with some conventionalized GCI nodes, further forming socio-cultural conventions in a speech community. During this process, there is a division of labor between context and conventions. Therefore, the diachronic study sheds new light on the relationship between GCIs and PCIs.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.23024.lia
2025-01-21
2025-02-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bach, Kent
    1984 “Default Reasoning: Jumping to Conclusions and Knowing When to Think Twice.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly (): –. 10.1111/j.1468‑0114.1984.tb00212.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0114.1984.tb00212.x [Google Scholar]
  2. 1994 “Conversational Impliciture.” Mind & Language (): –. 10.1111/j.1468‑0017.1994.tb00220.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.1994.tb00220.x [Google Scholar]
  3. 2017 “Drawing More Lines: Response to Depraetere and Salkie.” InSemantics and Pragmatics: Drawing a Line, ed. byIlse Depraetere, and Raphael Salkie, –. Berlin: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑32247‑6_3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32247-6_3 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bezuidenhout, Anne
    2019 “Noun-Noun Compounds from the Perspective of Relevance Theory.” InRelevance, Pragmatics and Interpretation: Essays in Honour of Deirdre Wilson, ed. byKate Scott, Billy Clark, and Robyn Carston, –. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108290593.016
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108290593.016 [Google Scholar]
  5. Carston, Robyn
    2002Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470754603
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754603 [Google Scholar]
  6. 2009 “The Explicit/Implicit Distinction in Pragmatics and the Limits of Explicit Communication.” International Review of Pragmatics (): –. 10.1163/187731009X455839
    https://doi.org/10.1163/187731009X455839 [Google Scholar]
  7. 2022 “Relevance Theory and the Philosophy of Language.” InThe Cambridge Handbook of the Philosophy of Language, ed. byPiotr Stalmaszczyk, –. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108698283.029
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108698283.029 [Google Scholar]
  8. Cohen, Jacob
    1960 “A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales.” Educational and Psychological Measurement: –. 10.1177/001316446002000104
    https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104 [Google Scholar]
  9. Goossens, Louis
    1990 “Metaphtonymy: The Interaction of Metaphor and Metonymy in Expressions for Linguistic Action.” Cognitive Linguistics (): –. 10.1515/cogl.1990.1.3.323
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.3.323 [Google Scholar]
  10. Grice, Paul
    1989Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi, and Friederike Hünnemeyer
    1991Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Huang, Yan
    2014Pragmatics, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 2017 “Implicature.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. byYan Huang, –. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199697960.013.7
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199697960.013.7 [Google Scholar]
  14. Jaszczolt, Kasia
    2005Default Semantics: Foundations of a Compositional Theory of Acts of Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199261987.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199261987.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  15. 2010 “Default Semantics.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, ed. byBernd Heine, and Heiko Narrog, –. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 2011 “Salient Meanings, Default Meanings, and Automatic Processing.” InSalience and Defaults in Utterance Processing, ed. byKasia Jaszczolt, –. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110270679.11
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110270679.11 [Google Scholar]
  17. 2023Semantics, Pragmatics, Philosophy: A Journey through Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108589338
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108589338 [Google Scholar]
  18. Kecskes, Istvan
    2021 “Processing Implicatures in English as a Lingua Franca Communication.” Lingua: –. 10.1016/j.lingua.2021.103067
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2021.103067 [Google Scholar]
  19. Kronasser, Heinz
    1952Handbuch der Semasiologie: Kurze Einführung in die Geschichte, Problematik und Terminologie der Bedeutungslehre. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Langacker, Ronald
    1987Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 2001 “Discourse in Cognitive Grammar.” Cognitive Linguistics (): –. 10.1515/cogl.12.2.143
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.12.2.143 [Google Scholar]
  22. 2008Cognitive 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]
  23. 2013Essentials of Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 2017 “Entrenchment in Cognitive Grammar.” InEntrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning: How We Reorganize and Adapt Linguistic Knowledge, ed. byHans-Jörg Schmid, –. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1037/15969‑003
    https://doi.org/10.1037/15969-003 [Google Scholar]
  25. Lemmens, Maarten
    2017 “A Cognitive, Usage-Based View on Lexical Pragmatics: Response to Hall.” InSemantics and Pragmatics: Drawing a Line, ed. byRaphael Salkie, and Ilse Depraetere, –. Berlin: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑32247‑6_7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32247-6_7 [Google Scholar]
  26. Levinson, Stephen
    1979 “Pragmatics and Social Deixis: Reclaiming the Notion of Conventional Implicature.” InProceedings of the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, ed. byJohn Kingston, Eve E. Sweetser, James Collins, Huruko Kawasaki, John Manley-Baser, Dorothy W. Marschak, Catherine O’Connor, David Shaul, Marta Tobey, Henry Thompson, and Katherine Turner, –. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. 10.3765/bls.v5i0.2162
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v5i0.2162 [Google Scholar]
  27. 2000Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  28. Mey, Jacob
    2001Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Noveck, Ira A.
    2018Experimental Pragmatics: The Making of a Cognitive Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316027073
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316027073 [Google Scholar]
  30. Schmid, Hans-Jörg
    2007 “Entrenchment, Salience, and Basic Levels.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, ed. byDirk Geeraerts, and Hubert Cuyckens, –. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. (ed.) 2012Cognitive Pragmatics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110214215
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214215 [Google Scholar]
  32. 2015 “A Blueprint of the Entrenchment-and-Conventionalization Model.” Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association (): –. 10.1515/gcla‑2015‑0002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/gcla-2015-0002 [Google Scholar]
  33. Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
    1995Relevance: Communication and Cognition, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Taylor, John
    1995 “Approaches to Word Meaning: The Network Model (Langacker) and the Two-Level Model (Bierwisch) in Comparison.” InCurrent Approaches to the Lexicon, ed. byRené Dirven, and Johan Vanparys, –. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 2002Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198700333.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198700333.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  36. Terkourafi, Marina
    2015 “Conventionalization: A New Agenda for Im/Politeness Research.” Journal of Pragmatics: –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.06.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.06.004 [Google Scholar]
  37. Traugott, Elizabeth C.
    2004 “Historical Pragmatics.” InThe Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. byLaurence Horn, and Gregory Ward, –. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470756959.ch24
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756959.ch24 [Google Scholar]
  38. Traugott, Elizabeth C., and Richard B. Dasher
    2002Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Wilson, Deirdre
    2019 “Relevance Theory.” InOxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics, ed. byMark Aronoff, –. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.201
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.201 [Google Scholar]
  40. Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber
    2004 “Relevance Theory.” InThe Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. byLaurence Horn, and Gregory Ward, –. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470756959.ch27
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756959.ch27 [Google Scholar]
  41. Wilson, Deirdre, and Patricia Kolaiti
    2017 “Lexical Pragmatics and Implicit Communication.” InImplicitness: From Lexis to Discourse, ed. byPiotr Cap, and Marta Dynel, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.276.07wil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.276.07wil [Google Scholar]
  42. Zhan, Fangqiong, and Chaofen Sun
    2022 “The Development of the Chinese Discourse Marker and Expressive Wanle.” Journal of Pragmatics: –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2021.11.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.11.008 [Google Scholar]
  43. Zhan, Weidong, Rui Guo, Baobao Chang, Yirong Chen, and Long Chen
    2019 “The Building of the CCL Corpus: Its Design and Implementation.” Corpus Linguistics (): –.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Zhang, Yanfei, and Shaojie Zhang
    2017 “Explicature Versus Default Meaning: A Response to Alessandro Capone’s Default Semantics and the Architecture of the Mind.” Journal of Pragmatics: –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.06.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.06.011 [Google Scholar]
  45. 2020 “A Cognitive-Pragmatic Study of Non-Scalar Implicatures.” Pragmatics and Society (): –. 10.1075/ps.18062.zha
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.18062.zha [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/prag.23024.lia
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/prag.23024.lia
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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