Cover not available
Part of
Constructing Families of Constructions: Analytical perspectives and theoretical challenges
Edited by Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Alba Luzondo Oyón and Paula Pérez-Sobrino
[Human Cognitive Processing 58] 2017
► pp. 109–134

Chapter 4
The role of inferencing in the interpretation of two expressive speech act constructions

| University of Hamburg
| Independent Researcher
We analyze two illocutionary constructions, viz. an autonomous complement clause construction, instantiated by That it should come to this!, and a wh-interrogative construction, such as What do think you are doing? Both constructions convey emotive and evaluative senses and have a factual presupposition. Conceptually and pragmatically, they are members of a large family of expressive constructions, albeit morphosyntactically unrelated. The first construction is directly associated with a non-compositional illocutionary meaning. In contrast, the interpretation of the second construction requires a number of inferential steps leading from a still extant source meaning (neutral question) to a conventionalized indirect expressive and directive target meaning. The chapter finishes with some reflections on the relation between semantics and pragmatics as well as on the necessity of integrating an inferential component into cognitive linguistic theory.
Keywords: autonomous complement clause construction, emotive sense, evaluative sense, family of constructions, presupposition, wh-interrogative construction
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Constructions and speech acts
    • 2.1The notion of construction
    • 2.2Searle’s classification of illocutionary acts
  • 3.Illocutionary constructions: Two case studies
    • 3.1The expressive scenario
    • 3.2The pragmatic meaning of the That NP should VP construction
    • 3.3The pragmatic meaning of the Wh-x do you think CL-x construction
  • 4.Conclusions and outlook
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 26 July 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.58.05pan
References (36)
References
Austin, J. L. 1962. How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Baicchi, A. 2012. On acting and thinking: Studies bridging between speech acts and cognition. Pisa: Edizioni ETS.Google Scholar
Barcelona, A. 2009. Motivation of construction meaning and form: The role of metonymy and inference. In K.-U. Panther, & L. L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (Human Cognitive Processing 25) (363–401). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benczes, R., Barcelona, A., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. (Eds.) 2011. Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view (Human Cognitive Processing 28). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bühler, K. 2011. Theory of language: The representational function of language. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. [Translation of: Bühler, K. (1981 [1934]). Sprachtheorie. Jena/Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer Verlag.] DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. 1990. A conceptual framework for grammatical categories (Or: A taxonomy of propositional acts). Journal of Semantics, 7, 245–279. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davis, M. 2008–. The corpus of contemporary American English: 450 million words, 1990–2012. Available online at [URL].
2013. Corpus of global web-based English: 1.9 billion words from speakers in 20 countries. Available online at [URL].
Evans, N. 2007. Insubordination and its uses. In I. Nikolaeva (Ed.), Finiteness: Theoretical and empirical foundations (366–431). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. 2014. Construction Grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. 1980. The framework of language (Michigan Studies in the Humanities 1). University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P., & Kiparsky, C. 1970. Fact. In M. Bierwisch, & K. E. Heidolph (Eds.), Progress in linguistics, (143–173). The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Kissine, Mikhail 2013. From utterances to speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U. 2009. Grammatische versus konzeptuelle Kongruenz. Oder: Wann siegt das natürliche Geschlecht? In R. Brdar-Szabó, E. Komlósi, & A. Péteri (Eds.), An der Grenze zwischen Grammatik und Pragmatik (Deutsche Sprachwissenschaft International 3) (67–86). Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2013. Motivation in language. In S. Kreitler (Ed.), Cognition and motivation: Forging an interdisciplinary perspective (407–432). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Köpcke, K.-M. 2008. A prototype approach to sentences and sentence types. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 6, 83–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L. 1998. A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 755–769. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1999. The POTENTIALITY FOR ACTUALITY metonymy in English and Hungarian. In K.-U. Panther, & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (Human Cognitive Processing 4) (333–357). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K. -U, & Thornburg, L. L. 2007. Metonymy. In D. Geeraerts, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (236–263). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L. 2009. From syntactic coordination to conceptual modification: The case of the nice and Adj construction. Constructions and Frames, 1: 56–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011. Emotion and desire in independent complement clauses: A case study from German. In M. Brdar, M. Žic Fuchs, & S. T. Gries (Eds.), Converging and diverging tendencies in cognitive linguistics (Human Cognitive Processing 32) (87–114). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Linda L. Thornburg. 2014. Metonymy and the way we speak. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 27, 168–186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L. 2017 Exploiting wh-questions for expressive purposes. In A. Athanasiadou (Ed.), Studies in figurative thought and language (Human Cognitive Processes). (17–40). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Forthcoming. What kind of reasoning mode is metonymy? In A. Barcelona, O. Blanco-Carrrion, & R. Pannain (Eds.), The ubiquity of conceptual metonymy: From morpheme to discourse (Human Cognitive Processing). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Mairal, R. 2008. Levels of description and constraining factors in meaning construction: An introduction to the lexical constructional model. Folia Linguistica, 42, 355–400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Baicchi, A. 2007. Illocutionary constructions: Cognitive motivation and linguistic realization. In I. Kecskes, & L. R. Horn (Eds.), Explorations in pragmatics: Linguistic, cognitive and intercultural aspects (Mouton Series in Pragmatics 1) (95–127). Berlin & New York: Mouton der Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sag, I., Boas, C., & Kay. P. 2012. Introducing Sign-based Construction Grammar. In H. C. Boas, & I. Sag (Eds.), Sign-Based Construction Grammar (1–29). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. 1969. Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1976. A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5, 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1979. Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. 2003. A construction-based approach to indirect speech acts. In K.-U. Panther, & L. L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (105–126). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thornburg, L., & Panther, K. 1997. Speech act metonymies. In W.-A. Liebert, G. Redeker, & L. Waugh (Eds.), Discourse and perspective in cognitive linguistics (205–219). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Linda L. Thornburg
2017. Chapter 1. Exploitingwh-questions for expressive purposes. In Studies in Figurative Thought and Language [Human Cognitive Processing, 56], ► pp. 18 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. Modeling Irony [Figurative Thought and Language, 12], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 october 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.