Chapter 4
The role of inferencing in the interpretation of two expressive speech act constructions
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.
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
References (36)
References
Austin, J. L. 1962. How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Baicchi, A. 2012. On acting and thinking: Studies bridging between speech acts and cognition. Pisa: Edizioni ETS.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Croft, W. 1990. A conceptual framework for grammatical categories (Or: A taxonomy of propositional acts). Journal of Semantics, 7, 245–279. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Davis, M. 2008–. The corpus of contemporary American English: 450 million words, 1990–2012. Available online at [URL].
Davis, M. 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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldberg, A. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldberg, A. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hilpert, M. 2014. Construction Grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jakobson, R. 1980. The framework of language (Michigan Studies in the Humanities 1). University of Michigan.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kiparsky, P., & Kiparsky, C. 1970. Fact. In M. Bierwisch, & K. E. Heidolph (Eds.), Progress in linguistics, (143–173). The Hague: Mouton.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kissine, Mikhail 2013. From utterances to speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![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, 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. 2007. Metonymy. In D. Geeraerts, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford 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. 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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L. 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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Searle, J. R. 1969. Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Searle, J. R. 1976. A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5, 1–23. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Searle, J. R. 1979. Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![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: John 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.