1887
Volume 13, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This article aims to illustrate the role that conceptual metaphor plays in the complex dynamics of interpersonal communication, with the focus being placed upon the synergistic relationship that metaphor holds with other Idealized Cognitive Models (Lakoff, 1987) in the construction of illocutionary meaning. This goal is pursued under the scope of the Cost-Benefit Cognitive Model(Baicchi & Ruiz de Mendoza, 2010), which has been elaborated to overcome the shortcomings of traditional relevance-theoretic approaches and to ground illocutionary activity within the constructionist strand of Cognitive Linguistics. The qualitative analysis of Webcorp data retrieved for the suggesting high-level situational cognitive model offers an exemplification of the interplay that metaphor holds with frames, image schemas, and metonymy.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.13.1.05bai
2015-06-23
2019-10-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Baicchi, A
    (2009) The AUX-NP requestive construction and its metonymic grounding within the Lexical Constructional Model. Lecture delivered at the International CRAL Conference 2009 . University of La Rioja.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. (2012) On acting and thinking: Studies bridging between speech acts and cognition. Pisa: ets.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. (2014) Speech acts as high-level situational cognitive models. In M.E. Schulze-Busacker & V. Fortunati (Eds.), Par les siècles et par les genres (pp.23–50). Paris: Classiques Garnier.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Baicchi, A. , & Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J
    (2010) The cognitive grounding of illocutionary constructions. Textus, 23(3), 543–563.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Blum-Kulka, S. , House, J. , & Kasper, G
    (Eds.) (1989) Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Brdar-Szabó, R
    (2009) Metonymy in indirect directives: Stand-alone conditionals in English, German, Hungarian and Croatian. In K.-U. Panther , L. Thornburg , & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 323–338). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.25.19brd
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.25.19brd [Google Scholar]
  7. Del Campo Martínez, N
    (2013) Illocutionary constructions in English: Cognitive motivation and linguistic realization. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Dik, S
    (1997) The Theory of Functional Grammar: Complex and derived constructions. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110218374
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110218374 [Google Scholar]
  9. Givón, T
    (1990) Syntax: A functional-typological introduction. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1017/s0022226700010434
    https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022226700010434 [Google Scholar]
  10. Goldberg, A.E
    (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Halliday, M.A.K
    (1978) Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Johnson, M
    (1987) The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, reason and imagination. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Jucker, A. , Schneider, G. , Taavitsainen, I. , & Breustedt, B
    (2008) Fishing for compliments: Precision and recall in corpus-linguistic compliment research. In A. Jucker & I. Taavitsainen (Eds.), Speech acts in the history of English (pp. 273–294). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.176.15juc
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.176.15juc [Google Scholar]
  15. Lakoff, G
    (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. doi: 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  16. Leech, G
    (1983) Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Mairal Usón, R. , & Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J
    (2009) Levels of description and explanation in meaning construction. In C.S. Butler & J. Martin Arista (Eds.), Deconstructing constructions (pp.153–198). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.107.08lev
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.107.08lev [Google Scholar]
  18. Mauri, C. , & Sansò, A
    (2011) How directive constructions emerge: grammaticalization, constructionalization, cooptation. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 3489–3521. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.08.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.08.001 [Google Scholar]
  19. Panther, K.-U. , & Thornburg, L
    (1998) A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics,30, 755–769. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00028‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00028-9 [Google Scholar]
  20. (1999) The potentiality for actuality metonymy in English and Hungarian. In K.-U. Panther , & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 333–357). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.4.19pan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.19pan [Google Scholar]
  21. Panther, K.-U. , Thornburg, L
    (2003) Metonymies as natural inference and activation schemas: the case of dependent clauses as independent speech acts. In K.-U. Panther & L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (pp. 127–147). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.113.10pan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.113.10pan [Google Scholar]
  22. Panther, K.-U. , & Thornburg, L
    (2005) Motivation and convention in some speech act constructions: a cognitive-linguistic approach. In S. Marmaridou , K. Nikiforidou , & E. Antonopoulou (Eds.), Reviewing linguistic thought: Converging trends for the 21st century (pp. 53–76). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110920826.53
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110920826.53 [Google Scholar]
  23. Pérez-Hernández, L
    (2001) Illocution and cognition: A constructional approach. Logroño: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de La Rioja.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. (2009) Análisis léxico-construccional de verbos de habla. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación, 40, 62–93.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. (2012) Saying something for a particular purpose: Constructional compatibility and constructional families. RESLA, 25, 189–210.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. (2013) Illocutionary constructions: (multiple source)-in-target metonymies, illocutionary ICMs, and specification links. Language & Communication, 33, 128–149. doi: 10.1016/j.langcom.2013.02.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2013.02.001 [Google Scholar]
  27. Pérez-Hernández, L. , & Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J
    (2002) Grounding, semantic motivation, and conceptual interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(3), 259–284. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)80002‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)80002-9 [Google Scholar]
  28. (2011) A lexical-constructional model account of illocution. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8, 99–138.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Reddy, M
    (1979) The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 248–324). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Rosch, E. , & Mervis, C
    (1975) Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573–605. doi: 10.1016/0010‑0285(75)90024‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(75)90024-9 [Google Scholar]
  31. Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J
    (2007) High-level cognitive models: In search of a unified framework for inferential and grammatical behaviour. In K. Kosecki (Ed.), Perspectives on metonymy (pp. 11–30). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. (2013) Meaning construction, meaning interpretation and formal expression in the Lexical Constructional Model. In B. Nolan & E. Diedrichsen (Eds.), Linking constructions into functional linguistics: The role of constructions in RRG grammars (pp. 231–270). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.145.09ib225
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.145.09ib225 [Google Scholar]
  33. Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J. , & Baicchi, A
    (2006) Illocutionary constructions. Linguistic LAUD Agency. Series A. General & Theoretical Papers. Essen, LAUD 2006. Paper no. 668.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. (2007) Illocutionary constructions: Cognitive motivation and linguistic realization. In I. Kecskes & L. Horn (Eds.), Explorations in pragmatics: Linguistic, cognitive, and intercultural aspects (pp. 95–128). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J. , & Gonzálvez-García, F
    (2011) Constructional Integration in the Lexical Constructional Model. British and American Studies, 17, 75–95.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J. , & Mairal Usón, R
    (2008) Levels of description and constraining factors in meaning construction: An introduction to the Lexical Constructional Model. Folia Linguistica, 42(2), 355–400.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Searle, J
    (1976) A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5(1), 1–23. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500006837
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500006837 [Google Scholar]
  38. Spencer-Oatey, H
    (1996) Reconsidering power and distance. Journal of Pragmatics, 26(1), 1–24. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(95)00047‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(95)00047-X [Google Scholar]
  39. Sperber, D. , & Wilson, D
    (1995) Relevance: Communication and cognition. 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Stefanowitsch, A
    (2003) A construction-based approach to indirect speech acts. In K.-U. Panther & L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing. (pp. 105–126). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.113.09ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.113.09ste [Google Scholar]
  41. Takahashi, H
    (2008) Imperatives in concessive clauses: Compatibility between constructions. Constructions, 2, 1–39.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. (2012) A cognitive linguistic analysis of the English imperative: With special reference to Japanese imperatives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.35
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.35 [Google Scholar]
  43. Talmy, L
    (1981) Force dynamics. Paper presented at theConference on Language and Mental Imagery . University of California at Berkeley.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. (1985) Force dynamics as a generalization over causative. InGeorgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics, 67–85.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. (1988) Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12(1), 49–100. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog1201_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1201_2 [Google Scholar]
  46. Thornburg, L. , & Panther, K.-U
    (1997) Speech act metonymies. In W.A. Liebert , G. Redeker , & L. Waugh (Eds.), Discourse and perspective in cognitive linguistics (pp. 205–219). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.151.14tho
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.151.14tho [Google Scholar]
  47. Verschueren, J
    (1985) What people say they do with words: Prolegomena to an empirical-conceptual approach to linguistic action. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.13.1.05bai
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