Cover not available
Part of
Studies in Figurative Thought and Language
Edited by Angeliki Athanasiadou
[Human Cognitive Processing 56] 2017
► pp. 17–40

Chapter 1
Exploiting wh-questions for expressive purposes

| University of Hamburg
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.
Keywords: conceptual compression, conceptual decompression, conventionalization, metonymically motivated inference, source and target senses
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
Published online: 26 April 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.56.01pan
References (37)
References
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: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benczes, R., Barcelona, A., & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. (Eds.). 2011. Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view [Human Cognitive Processing 28]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. 2002. The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. D. 2001. Setting syntactic parameters. In M. Baltin, & C. Collins (Eds.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory (730–767). Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, L. 2005. Thinking syntactically: A guide to argumentation and analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. 2011. Thinking, fast and slow. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
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
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, L. A., & Feng, H. 2015. What is this, sarcastic syntax? Constructions and Frames, 7(2), 148–180.Google Scholar
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
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
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
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
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., & Thornburg, L. L. 1998. A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(6), 755–769. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
1999b. The POTENTIALITY FOR ACTUALTIY 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: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
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 logoGoogle Scholar
2003b. Metonymies as natural inference schemas: The case of dependent clauses as independent speech acts. In K.-U. Panther, & L. L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 113] (127–147). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004. The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. metaphorik.de, 6, 91–116. (Published on-line at: [URL])
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
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 logoGoogle Scholar
2007. Metonymy. In D. Geeraerts, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (236–263). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2009a. From syntactic coordination to conceptual modification: The case of the nice and Adj construction. Constructions and Frames, 1(1), 56–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
2011. Emotion and desire in independent complement clauses: A case study from German. In Brdar, Mario, Milena Žic Fuchs, & Stefan T. Gries (Eds.), Converging and Diverging Tendencies in Cognitive Linguistics [Human Cognitive Processing 32]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins, 87–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
2014. Metonymy and the way we speak. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 27(1), 168–186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.
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.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera Masegosa, A. 2014. Cognitive modeling: A linguistic perspective [Human Cognitive Processing 45]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Siemund, P. 2014. Exclamative sentences in English: Between grammar and usage. Ms.Google 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: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Athanasiadou, Angeliki
2017. Chapter 9. Irony has a metonymic basis. In Irony in Language Use and Communication [Figurative Thought and Language, 1], ► pp. 201 ff. DOI logo
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Linda L. Thornburg
2017. Chapter 4. The role of inferencing in the interpretation of two expressive speech act constructions. In Constructing Families of Constructions [Human Cognitive Processing, 58], ► pp. 109 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 7 september 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.