Chapter 1
Exploiting wh-questions for expressive purposes
This chapter offers a conceptual-pragmatic analysis of the construction Wh-x do you think [
complement clause
…], which exhibits the morphosyntactic form of wh-interrogative sentences and may indeed be used with a question meaning, but in many contexts functions as a highly expressive speech act (of e.g. strong disapproval). We argue that the expressive sense (target) of the construction is derivable from the (literal) question meaning (source) via a series of metonymically motivated steps. In terms of Fauconnier’s and Turner’s conceptual integration theory, the expressive target meaning can be regarded as the result of conceptual compression. Notwithstanding, “decompression” is always possible, i.e., despite the high degree of conventionalization of the expressive sense, the literal question reading remains cognitively accessible.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.The Wh-x do you think [
comp-cl
…] construction
- 3.Neutral question sense vs. expressive sense
- 3.1Who do you think [
comp-cl
…]
- 3.1.1Neutral question sense (‘who’ as subject)
-
3.1.2Expressive sense (‘who’ as subject)
- 3.1.3Neutral question sense (‘who’ as object)
- 3.1.4Expressive sense (‘who’ as object)
- 3.2Where do you think [
comp-cl
…]
- 3.2.1Neutral question sense
- 3.2.2Expressive sense
- 3.3When do you think [
comp-cl
…]
- 3.3.1Neutral question sense
- 3.3.2Expressive sense
- 3.4How do you think [
comp-cl
…]
- 3.4.1Neutral question sense
- 3.4.2Expressive sense
- 3.5Why do you think [
comp-cl
…]
- 3.5.1Neutral question sense
- 3.5.2Expressive sense
- 3.6What do you think [
comp-cl
…]
- 3.6.1Neutral question sense
- 3.6.2Expressive sense
- 4.Expressivity in the Wh-x do you think [
comp-cl
…] construction
- 5.The What do you think you are doing? construction
- 6.Conclusions and outlook
-
Acknowledgements
-
Notes
-
References
References (37)
References
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. 2002. The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fodor, J. D. 2001. Setting syntactic parameters. In M. Baltin, & C. Collins (Eds.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory (730–767). Oxford: Blackwell. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Haegeman, L. 2005. Thinking syntactically: A guide to argumentation and analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kahneman, D. 2011. Thinking, fast and slow. London: Penguin.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kay, P. 1997. Constructional modus tollens and level of conventionality. In P. Kay, Words and the grammar of context (171–188). Stanford: CSLI Publications.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kay, P. C., & Fillmore, Ch. J. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X doing Y? construction. Language
, 75(1), 1–33. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Michaelis, L. A., & Feng, H. 2015. What is this, sarcastic syntax? Constructions and Frames, 7(2), 148–180.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Morgan, J. 1978. Two types of convention in indirect speech acts. In P. Cole (Ed.), Pragmatics [Syntax and Semantics 9] (261–280). New York: Academic Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Panther, K.-U. 2005a. Inaugural lecture: Metonymic reasoning inside and outside language. In A. Makkai, W. J. Sullivan, & A. R. Lommel (Eds.), LACUS FORUM XXXI: Interconnections (13–32). Houston: The Linguistic Association of Canada and the United States: Houston.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Panther, K.-U. 2005b. The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, & S. Peña Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction [Cognitive Linguistics Research 32] (353–386). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Panther, K.-U. 2006. Metonymy as a usage event. In G. Kristiansen, M. Achard, R. Dirven, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Current applications and future perspectives [Applications in Cognitive Linguistics 1] (147–185). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Panther, K.-U. 2013. Motivation in language. In S. Kreitler (Ed.), Cognition and motivation: Forging an interdisciplinary perspective (407–432). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L. 1998. A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(6), 755–769. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L. 1999a. Coercion and metonymy: The interaction of constructional and lexical meaning. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Ed.), Cognitive perspectives on language [Polish Studies in English Language and Literature 1] (37–52). Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L. 2000. The EFFECT FOR CAUSE metonymy in English grammar. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads [Topics in English Linguistics 30] (215–231). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L. 2003a. Introduction: On the nature of conceptual metonymy. In K.-U. Panther, & L. L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 113] (1–20). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L. 2004. The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. metaphorik.de, 6, 91–116. (Published on-line at: [URL])
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L. 2005a. Inference in the construction of meaning: The role of conceptual metonymy. In E. Górska, & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy-metaphor collage (37–57). Warsaw: Warsaw University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L. 2005b. Motivation and convention in some speech act constructions: A cognitive-linguistic approach, In K. Nikiforidou, S. Marmaridou, & E. Antonopoulou (Eds.), Reviewing linguistic thought: Converging trends for the 21st century [Trends in Linguistics] (53–76). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L. 2007. Metonymy. In D. Geeraerts, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (236–263). Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L. 2009b. Introduction: On figuration in grammar. In K.-U. Panther, L. L. Thornburg, & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar [Human Cognitive Processing 25] (1–44). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L. 2012. Antonymy in language structure and use. In Brdar, Mario, Ida Raffaelli, & Milena Žic Fuchs (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics Between Universality and Variation. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, 161–188.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L. Forthcoming a. The role of inferencing in two expressive speech act constructions. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza, P. Pérez-Sobrino, & A. Luzondo-Oyón (Eds.), Constructing families of constructions [Human Cognitive Processing]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia. Benjamins.
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L. Forthcoming b. 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: Benjamins.
Searle, J. R. 1975. Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole, & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Speech acts [Syntax and Semantics 3] (59–82). New York; Academic Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Siemund, P. 2014. Exclamative sentences in English: Between grammar and usage. Ms.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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: Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Voßhagen, C. 1999. Opposition as a metonymic principle. In K.-U. Panther, & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought [Human Cognitive Processing 4] (289–308). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Linda L. Thornburg
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.