Cover not available
Part of
Discourse Studies in Public Communication
Edited by Eliecer Crespo-Fernández
[Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture 92] 2021
► pp. 273–296

Chapter 12
Business discourse from a psycholinguistic approach

ORCID logo | Universidad de CádizSpain
Business discourse has always captured the attention of several social and cultural fields. Within the framework of linguistics, disciplines such as pragmatics, sociolinguistics, and linguistic anthropology have contributed to the analysis of this communication process and the design of a linguistic model, suited to its contextual, social, and cultural determining factors. This chapter addresses the need for expanding this model by the incorporation of the latest achievements in psycholinguistics through a neurosemantic approach to language, focusing on three points: (1) the mental organisation of linguistic knowledge into networks; (2) the strong ties between linguistic processes and other cognitive functions; and (3) the effectiveness of the contrast principle which emerges from the lexical units and transcends the textual level. The business language data used in this study derive from texts related to and/or produced by three Spanish companies. The analysis is intended to attain a more comprehensive formulation of business discourse as a communicative modality, and, in addition, determine the major cognitive strategies found in its different textual manifestations.
Keywords: business discourse, language of negotiation, cognitive strategies, selection and combination mechanisms, lexicon-syntax interface, semantic contrast
Article outline
  • 1.Business discourse as a communication modality
  • 2.A psycholinguistic approach
  • 3.Versatility and creativity in business communication
  • 4.Selection and combination mechanisms in business discourse
  • 5.The contrast principle in business communication
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 7 April 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.92.12var
References (75)
References
Arzouan, Yossi, Abraham Goldstein, and Miriam Faust. 2007. “Dynamics of Hemisphere Activity during Metaphor Comprehension: Electrophisiological Measures.” NeuroImage 36: 222–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca (ed). 2009. The Handbook of Business Discourse. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca, Catherine Nickerson, and Brigitte Planken (eds). 2007. Business Discourse. Research and Practice in Applied Linguistics. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Barthes, Roland. 1964. “Éléments de sémiologie [Elements of semiology].” Communications. Recherches Sémiologiques 4: 91–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bateson, Gregory. 1972. Steps to an Ecology of Mind: Collected Essays in Anthropology, Psychiatry, Evolution, and Epistemology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Benedek, Mathias, Roger Beaty, Emanuel Jauk, Karl Koschutnig, Andreas Fink, Paul J. Silvia, Beate Dunst, and Aljoscha C. Neubauer. 2014. “Creating Metaphors: The Neural Basis of Figurative Language Production.” NeuroImage 90: 99–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bettinghaus, Erwin P., and Michael J. Cody. 1987. Persuasive Communication (4th ed). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.Google Scholar
Boden, Deirdre. 1994. The Business of Talk. Organizations in Action. London: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Breeze, Ruth. 2013. Corporate Discourse. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Bühler, Karl. 1934. Sprachtheorie. Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache [Language theory. The representative function of language]. Stuttgart: Fischer.Google Scholar
Caramazza, Alfonso F., Argye E. Hillis, Brenda C. Rapp, and Cristina Romani. 1990. “The Multiple Semantics Hypothesis: Multiple Confusion?” Cognitive Neuropsychology 7: 161–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Charles, Walter G., Marjorie A. Reed, and Douglas Derryberry. 1994. “Conceptual and Associative Processing in Antonymy and Synonymy.” Applied Psycholinguistics 15 (3): 329–354. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William, and D. Alan Cruse. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daniushina, Yulia V. 2010. “Business Linguistics and Business Discourse.” Calidoscópio 8 (3): 241–247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Darmesteter, Arsène. 1895. La vie des mots etudiée dans leurs significations [Life of words from the point of view of meaning]. Paris: Labrairie Delagrave.Google Scholar
Ehlich, Konrad, and Johannes Wagner (eds). 1995. The Discourse of Business Negotiation. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Escavy Zamora, Ricardo. 2004. “El principio de cooperación y las violaciones antagónicas [The cooperative principle and the antagonistic violations].” In VIII Jornadas de Lingüística, ed. by M. Jesús Paredes Duarte, and Carmen Varo Varo, 47–68. Cádiz: Universidad de Cádiz.Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 1989. Language and Power. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Falk, Simone. 2014. “On the Notion of Salience in Spoken Discourse – Prominence Cues Shapping Discourse Structure and Comprehension.” Travaux Interdisciplinaires sur la Parole et le Langage 30: 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fellbaum, Christiane. 1995. “Co-ocurrence and Antonymy.” International Journal of Lexicography 8 (4): 281–303. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1975. “Logic and Conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 3. Speech Acts, ed. by Peter Cole, and Jerry L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K., Nancy Hedberg, and Ron Zacharski. 1993. “Cognitive Status and the Form of Referring Expressions in Discourse.” Language 69: 274–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1974. Teoría de la acción comunicativa [Theory of communicative action]. Madrid: Cátedra.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1978. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Henderson, Willie. 1982. “Metaphor in Economics.” Economics 18: 147–157.Google Scholar
Hickok, Gregory, and David Poeppel. 2004. “Dorsal and Ventral Streams. A Framework for Understanding Aspects of the Functional Anatomy of Language.” Cognition 92: 67–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmes, Janet. 2015. “Discourse in the Workplace.” In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, ed. by Deborah Tannen, Heidi E. Hamilton, and Deborah Schiffrin, 880–901. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Holquist, Michael (ed). 1982. The Dialogic Imagination. Four Essays by M. M. Bakthin. Texas: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 1998. “Exploring Corporate Rhetoric: Metadiscourse in the CEO’s Letter.” The Journal of Business Communication 35 (2): 224–245. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 2002. Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, and Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1960. “Linguistics and Poetics.” In Style in Language, ed. by Thomas A. Sebeok, 350–377. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jaworska, Sylvia. 2020. “Corporate Discourse.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Discourse Studies, ed. by Anna De Fina, and Alexandra Georgakopoulou-Nunes, 666–686. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jeffreys, Daniel. 1982. “Metaphor in Economics – An Illustrative Appendix.” Economics 18 (4): 154–157.Google Scholar
Johnson, Mark. 1987. The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Reason and Imagination. Chicago, London: Chicago University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jones, Steven. 2002. Antonymy. A Corpus-based Perspective. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kheovichai, Baramee. 2015. “Metaphorical Scenarios in Business Science Discourse.” Ibérica 29: 155–178.Google Scholar
Kiefer, Markus, and Friedemann Pulvermüller. 2012. “Conceptual Representations in Mind and Brain: Theoretical Developments, Current Evidence and Future Directions.” Cortex 48: 805–825. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lai, Vicky, Tim Curran, and Lise Menn. 2009. “Comprehending Conventional and Novel Metaphors: an ERP Study.” Brain Research 1284: 145–155. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1993. “The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor.” In Metaphor and Thought, ed. by Andrew Ortony, 202–251. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lamb, Sydney. 1999. Pathways of the Brain. The Neurocognitive Basis of Language. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lamb, Sydney, and Jonathan Webster (eds). 2004. Language and Reality. Selected Writings by Sydney Lamb. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Mashal, Nira, Miriam Faust, Talma Hendlert, and Mark Jung-Beeman. 2007. “An fMRI Investigation of the Neural Correlates Underlying the Processing of Novel Metaphoric Expressions.” Brain and Language 100: 115–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mautner, Gerlinde, and Franz Rainer (eds). 2017. Handbook of Business Communication. Linguistic Approaches. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCloskey, Donald. 1995. “Metaphors Economists Live By.” Social Research 62: 215–237.Google Scholar
Montolío, Estrella, and Fernando Ramallo. 2009. “Spain.” In The Handbook of Business Discourse, ed. by Francesca Bargiela-Chiappini, 412–422. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Morris, Charles W. 1938. Foundations of the Theory of Signs. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mulholland, Joan. 1991. The Language of Negotiation: A Handbook of Practical Strategies for Improving Communication. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Murphy, M. Lynne. 2003. Semantic Relations and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murphy, Gregory L., and Jane M. Andrew. 1993. “The Conceptual Basis of Antonymy and Synonymy in Adjectives.” Journal of Memory and Language 32 (3): 301–319. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Osgood, Charles E., and Thomas A. Sebeok (eds). 1965. Psycholinguistics: A Survey of Theory and Research Problems. Bloomington and London: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Pulvermüller, Friedemann. 2003. The Neuroscience of Language. On Brain Circuits of Words and Serial Orders. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. “Brain Embodiment of Syntax and Grammar: Discrete Combinatorial Mechanisms Spelt out in Neuronal Circuits.” Brain and Language 112 (3): 167–179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pulvermüller, Friedemann, and Andreas Knoblauch. 2009. “Discrete Combinatorial Circuits Emerging in Neural Networks: A Mechanism for Rules of Grammar in the Human Brain?” Neural Networks 22 (2): 161–172. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rodrigo Alsina, Miquel. 1995. Los modelos de la comunicación [Models of communication] (2nd ed). Madrid: Tecnos.Google Scholar
Romashko, Sergej. 2000. “Vers l’analyse du dialogue en Russie [Towards the analysis of dialogue in Russian].” Histoire Epistémologie Langage 12 (2): 83–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rumelhart, David E., and James L. McClelland. 1986. Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition. Cambridge: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1916. Cours de Linguistique Générale [Course in General Linguistics]. Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
Scollon, Ron, and Suzanne W. Scollon. 2001. Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach (2nd ed). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Searle, John. 1969. Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shannon, Claude E., and Warren Weaver. 1949. The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Illinois: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Silvia, Paul J., and Roger E. Beaty. 2012. “Making Creative Metaphors: the Importance of Fluid Intelligence for Creative Thought.” Intelligence 40: 343–351. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skorczynska, Hanna, and Alice Deignan. 2006. “Readership and Purpose in the Choice of Economics Metaphors.” Metaphor and Symbol 21 (2): 87–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, Neil. 2003. Communication and Language. A Handbook of Theory and Practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Thomson, Clive. 1983. “The Semiotics of M. M. Bakhtin.” University of Ottawa Quarterly 53 (1): 11–22.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Rosario, Max Garagnani, Thomas Wennekers, and Friedemann Pulvermüller. 2017. “Brain Connections of Words, Perceptions and Actions: A Neurobiological Model of Spatio-temporal Semantic Activation in the Human Cortex.” Neuropsychologia 98: 111–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trosborg, Anna, and Poul E. Flyvholm Jørgensen (eds). 2005. Business Discourse. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Ullmann, Michael. 2004. “Contributions of Memory Circuits to Language: The Declarative/procedural Model.” Cognition 92 (1–2): 231–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ungerer, Friedrich, and Hans-Jörg Schmid. 2006. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar
Varo, Carmen. 2013. “Aproximación teórico-práctica al procesamiento lingüístico de neologismos léxicos [A theoretical-practical approach to the linguistic processing of lexical neologisms].” Revista Signos. Estudios de Lingüística 46 (81): 132–152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. “Beyond the Opposites: Philological and Cognitive Aspects of Linguistic Polarization.” Philology. An International Journal on the Evolution of Languages, Cultures and Texts 2: 219–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vine, Bernadette. 2004. Getting Things Done at Work: The Discourse of Power in Workplace Interaction. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Varo Varo, Carmen
2022. Estrategias lingüísticas para la construcción y la difusión de la identidad y de la imagen corporativa: aproximación a través de los corpus de comunicación pública empresarial. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación 89 ► pp. 183 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.