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.
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.
Baicchi, A. (2012). On acting and thinking: Studies bridging between speech acts and cognition. Pisa: ets.
Baicchi, A. (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.
Baicchi, A., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J. (2010). The cognitive grounding of illocutionary constructions. Textus, 23(3), 543–563.
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (Eds.). (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
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.
Pérez-Hernández, L. (2001). Illocution and cognition: A constructional approach. Logroño: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de La Rioja.
Pérez-Hernández, L. (2009). Análisis léxico-construccional de verbos de habla. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación, 401, 62–93.
Pérez-Hernández, L. (2012). Saying something for a particular purpose: Constructional compatibility and constructional families. RESLA, 251, 189–210.
Pérez-Hernández, L. (2013). Illocutionary constructions: (multiple source)-in-target metonymies, illocutionary ICMs, and specification links. Language & Communication, 331, 128–149.
Pérez-Hernández, L., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J. (2002). Grounding, semantic motivation, and conceptual interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(3), 259–284.
Pérez-Hernández, L., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J. (2011). A lexical-constructional model account of illocution. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 81, 99–138.
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.
Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 71, 573–605.
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.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J., & Baicchi, A. (2006). Illocutionary constructions. Linguistic LAUD Agency. Series A. General & Theoretical Papers. Essen, LAUD 2006. Paper no. 668.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J., & Baicchi, A. (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.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J., & Gonzálvez-García, F. (2011). Constructional Integration in the Lexical Constructional Model. British and American Studies, 171, 75–95.
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.
Searle, J. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5(1), 1–23.
Spencer-Oatey, H. (1996). Reconsidering power and distance. Journal of Pragmatics, 26(1), 1–24.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition. 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell.
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.
Takahashi, H. (2008). Imperatives in concessive clauses: Compatibility between constructions. Constructions, 21, 1–39.
Talmy, L. (1981). Force dynamics. Paper presented at the Conference on Language and Mental Imagery
. University of California at Berkeley.
Talmy, L. (1985). Force dynamics as a generalization over causative. In Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics, 67–85.
Talmy, L. (1988). Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12(1), 49–100.
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.
Verschueren, J. (1985). What people say they do with words: Prolegomena to an empirical-conceptual approach to linguistic action. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
Cited by (4)
Cited by four other publications
Khafaga, Ayman
2024. Requests as macro-speech act motivators in Qur’anic dialogues. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 11:1
Pérez-Hernández, Lorena
2019. From research to the textbook. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics 32:1 ► pp. 248 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 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.