Cover not available
Part of
Studies in Figurative Thought and Language
Edited by Angeliki Athanasiadou
[Human Cognitive Processing 56] 2017
► pp. 105–124

Chapter 4
Cognitive motivation in the linguistic realization of requests in Modern Greek

| University of Thessaly
The chapter attempts to account for conventionalized request realization patterns in Modern Greek and the semantic motivation behind their conventionalization in particular uses. It adheres to recent formulations within Cognitive Linguistics regarding illocutionary meaning as emerging from the co-activation of higher order cognitive structures from linguistically codified patterns and from information available in the context of the interaction. It further argues for the conceptual prominence of the optionality attribute in the request Idealized Cognitive Model, exploring the ways it is linguistically safeguarded in language use. The semantic import of optionality can be best described in terms of the proximity vs. distance to reality metaphor as effected through the grounding specifications of the proposition in Langacker’s Cognitive Grammar.
Keywords: directive Idealized Cognitive Model, grounding, optionality, proximal/distal metaphor
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The conceptual make-up of requests
  • 3.Realization procedures of the speech act of request in Modern Greek
    • 3.1Request realization procedures in Modern Greek
    • 3.2Clausal grounding and the epistemic domain
    • 3.3Grounding specifications and semantic characterization of request realization patterns
      • 3.3.1The Imperative construction
      • 3.3.2The Present tense interrogative construction
      • 3.3.3Can/could you + subjunctive interrogatives (boris/tha borouses na…?)
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 26 April 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.56.04vas
References (52)
References
Baicchi, A. 2014. How to do things with metonymy. Illocutionary scenarios and constructional procedures. Paper presented at the 1st International Symposium on Figurative Thought and Language. 25–26 April 2014. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.
Baicchi, A., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. 2011. The cognitive grounding of illocutionary constructions within the theoretical perspective of the Lexical Constructional Model. Textus XXIII(3), 543–563.Google Scholar
Bella, S. 2005. Cognitive motivation and pragmatic function of the Greek deictics. Journal of Greek Linguistics, 6, 39–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012. Pragmatic development in a foreign language: A study of Greek FL requests. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 1917–1947. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. 1989. Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Brisard, F. 2006. Logic, subjectivity, and the semantics/ pragmatics distinction. In A. Athanasiadou, C. Canakis & B. Cornillie (Eds.), Subjectification: Various paths to subjectivity (41–74). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. 1985. Morphology. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Del Campo Martínez, N. 2011a. A constructional approach to the expression of illocutionary meaning: An analysis of constructions performing the speech acts of requesting and begging. RESLA, 24, 43–60.Google Scholar
2011b. A lexical-constructional approach to illocutionary constructions: The case of requests. Revista de Lingüística y Lenguas Aplicadas, 6, 83–94.Google Scholar
Fleischman, S. 1982. The future in thought and language: Diachronic evidence from Romance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1989. Temporal distance: a basic linguistic metaphor. Studies in Language, 13(1), 1–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Householder F. W., Kazazis, K., & Koutsoudas, A. 1964. Reference grammar of literary Dhimotiki. Bloomington: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Jensen, K. E. 2007. A construction-based study of English predicators. Ph.D. dissertation. Institute of Language and Communication, University of Southern Denmark. Retrieved from [URL]
Klairis, C., & Babiniotis, G., in cooperation with Mozer, A., Bakakou-Orfanou, A., & Skopetea, S. 2005. Grammatiki tis Neas Ellinikis [Modern Greek grammar]. Athens: Ellinika Grammata.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. II. Descriptive application. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
2008. Cognitive Grammar. A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009a. Investigations in cognitive grammar. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009b. Cognitive grammar. In D. Sandra, J.-O. Östman & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Cognition and pragmatics [Handbook of Pragmatics Highlights 3] (78–85). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, G. 1983. Principles of pragmatics. London & New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. 1994 [1977]. Semantics. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mackridge, P. 1985. The Modern Greek Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Marmaridou, S. 2000. Pragmatic meaning and cognition. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mauri, C., & Sansò, A. 2012. The reality status of directives and its coding across languages. Language Sciences, 34, 147–170. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mortelmans, T. 2007. Modality in cognitive linguistics. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (869–889). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Niemeier, S. 2013. A cognitive grammar perspective on tense and aspect. In R. Salaberry & L. Comajoan (Eds.), Research design and methodology in studies on l2 tense and aspect (11–56). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, J., Byloo, P., Diepeveen, J. 2005. On deontic modality, directivity, and mood: A case study of Dutch mogen and moeten. Antwerp Papers in Linguistics 110.Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. 1998. A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 755–769. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 (53–76). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009. Introduction: On figuration in grammar. In K. U. Panther, L. Thornburg, A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (1–44). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K. U., & Radden, G. 2011. Introduction: Reflections on motivation revisited. In K. U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Motivation in grammar and the lexicon (1–26). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pérez Hernández, L. 2001. Illocution and cognition: A constructional approach. Logroño: Universidad de la Rioja. Servicio de Publicaciones.Google Scholar
2013. Illocutionary constructions: (multiple source)-in-target metonymies, illocutionary ICMs, and specification links. Language and Communication, 33, 128–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pérez Hernández, L., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. 2002. Grounding, semantic motivation, and conceptual interaction in indirect directive speech acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(3), 259–284. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, G., & Dirven, R. 2007. Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raptis, K. 1995a. Plagies glossikes praxeis kai grammatikopoiisi [Indirect speech acts and grammaticalization]. Meletes gia tin Elliniki Glossa [Studies in Greek Linguistics] 15, 629–638.Google Scholar
1995b. Concatenated Imperatives in Modern Greek. In G. Drachman et al. (Eds.), Greek Linguistics 95. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Greek Linguistics (589–598). Graz: Neugebauer Verlag GmbH.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Baicchi, A. 2007. Illocutionary constructions: Cognitive motivation and linguistic realization. In K. Istvan & L. Horn (Eds.), Explorations in pragmatics: Linguistic, cognitive, and intercultural aspects (95–127). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sadock, J. M., & Zwicky, A. 1990 [1985]. Speech act distinctions in syntax. In T. Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. Vol. I (155–196). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. 1969. Speech acts. An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1975. Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (59–82). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R., & Vanderveken, D. 1985. Foundations of illocutionary logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sifianou, M. 1992. Politeness phenomena in England and Greece. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. 2003. A construction-based approach to indirect speech acts. In K.-U. Panther & L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (105–126). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003ms. The English imperative: A construction-based approach. Unpublished manuscript, Universität Bremen. Retrieved from [URL].
Takahashi, H. 2012. A cognitive linguistic analysis of the English imperative: With special reference to Japanese imperatives [Human Cognitive Processing 35]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tsangalidis, A. 2004. Unidirectionality in the grammaticalization of modality in Greek. In O. Fischer, M. Norde & H. Perridon (Eds.), Up and down the cline – The nature of grammaticalization (193–209). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tyler, A., & Evans, V. 2001. The relation between experience, conceptual structure and meaning: Non-temporal uses of tense and language teaching. In M. Pütz, R. Dirven & S. Niemeier (Eds.), Applied cognitive linguistics I: Theory and language acquisition (63–105). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tzartzanos, A. 1996 [1946]. Neoelliniki Syntaxis (tis koinis dimotikis) [Modern Greek Syntax]. Vol. A. Thessaloniki: Kyriakides Bros.Google Scholar
Veloudis, Y. 2010. Apo ti simasiologia tis ellinikis glossas: Opseis tis ‘epistimikis tropikotitas’ [Greek language semantics: Aspects of ‘epistemic modality’]. Thessaloniki: Institute of Modern Greek Studies (Manolis Triandafyllides Foundation).Google Scholar
Verhagen, A. 2005. Constructions of intersubjectivity. Discourse, syntax, and cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2007. Construal and perspectivization. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (48–81). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Veloudis, Ioannis
2023. Negation in Modern Greek revisited: selecting between two speaker-based accounts. Folia Linguistica 57:3 ► pp. 689 ff. DOI logo
Mompean, Jose A. & Javier Valenzuela Manzanares
2019. Brexit means Brexit: a constructionist analysis. Complutense Journal of English Studies 27 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 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.