Cover not available
Article published In:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 13:1 (2015) ► pp.106–139

Conceptual metaphor in the complex dynamics of illocutionary meaning

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.

Keywords: illocutionary meaning, conceptual metaphor, suggesting high-level situational cognitive model, Idealized Cognitive Models
Published online: 23 June 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.13.1.05bai
References
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.
(2012) On acting and thinking: Studies bridging between speech acts and cognition. Pisa: ets.Google Scholar
(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
Baicchi, A., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J
(2010) The cognitive grounding of illocutionary constructions. Textus, 23(3), 543–563.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G
(Eds.) (1989) Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.Google Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Del Campo Martínez, N
(2013) Illocutionary constructions in English: Cognitive motivation and linguistic realization. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Dik, S
(1997) The Theory of Functional Grammar: Complex and derived constructions. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, T
(1990) Syntax: A functional-typological introduction. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A.E
(1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K
(1978) Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Johnson, M
(1987) The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, reason and imagination. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G
(1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, G
(1983) Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Mauri, C., & Sansò, A
(2011) How directive constructions emerge: grammaticalization, constructionalization, cooptation. Journal of Pragmatics, 431, 3489–3521. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L
(1998) A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 301, 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 (pp. 333–357). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Pérez-Hernández, L
(2001) Illocution and cognition: A constructional approach. Logroño: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de La Rioja.Google Scholar
(2009) Análisis léxico-construccional de verbos de habla. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación, 401, 62–93.Google Scholar
(2012) Saying something for a particular purpose: Constructional compatibility and constructional families. RESLA, 251, 189–210.Google Scholar
(2013) Illocutionary constructions: (multiple source)-in-target metonymies, illocutionary ICMs, and specification links. Language & Communication, 331, 128–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pérez-Hernández, L., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J
(2002) Grounding, semantic motivation, and conceptual interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(3), 259–284. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011) A lexical-constructional model account of illocution. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 81, 99–138.Google Scholar
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
Rosch, E., & Mervis, C
(1975) Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 71, 573–605. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
(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 logoGoogle Scholar
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
(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
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J., & Gonzálvez-García, F
(2011) Constructional Integration in the Lexical Constructional Model. British and American Studies, 171, 75–95.Google Scholar
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
Searle, J
(1976) A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5(1), 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H
(1996) Reconsidering power and distance. Journal of Pragmatics, 26(1), 1–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D
(1995) Relevance: Communication and cognition. 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Takahashi, H
(2008) Imperatives in concessive clauses: Compatibility between constructions. Constructions, 21, 1–39.Google Scholar
Talmy, L
(1981) Force dynamics. Paper presented at the Conference on Language and Mental Imagery . University of California at Berkeley.
(1985) Force dynamics as a generalization over causative. In Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics, 67–85.Google Scholar
(1988) Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12(1), 49–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Baicchi, Annalisa
2017. Chapter 3. How to do things with metonymy in discourse. In Studies in Figurative Thought and Language [Human Cognitive Processing, 56], ► pp. 76 ff. DOI logo
Pérez-Hernández, Lorena
2019. From research to the textbook. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics 32:1 ► pp. 248 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 13 april 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.