Cover not available
Part of
Cognitive Linguistics and the Study of Chinese
Edited by Dingfang Shu, Hui Zhang and Lifei Zhang
[Human Cognitive Processing 67] 2019
► pp. 207–223

Chapter 7
Complementing cognitive linguistics with pragmatics and vice versa

Two illustrations from Chinese

 | Xi’an International Studies University | California State UniversitySan Bernardino
In this chapter I present two examples in Chinese that illustrate the efficacy of combining cognitive linguistics with pragmatics in the study of language. The first is the greeting ni chi le mo?(你吃了没?) ‘How are you?’ in a Chinese dialect about which I argue that an adequate analysis is obtained by combining the basic tenets of construction grammar with principles of the speech act theory. The second comes from metaphor. By looking at metaphors that are not meant to help the hearer understand a thing but rather to see it differently, I make the same point, that cognitive linguistics and pragmatics can complement each other so that a deeper understanding of language is achieved.
Keywords: construction grammar, speech act theory
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Illustration 1: Ni chi le mo (‘How are you?’)
  • 3.Illustration 2: Non-conceptual conceptual metaphors
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 20 November 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.67.09che
References (43)
References
Bara, B. G. 2010. Cognitive pragmatics: The mental processes of communication. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011. Cognitive pragmatics. Intercultural Pragmatics, 8(3), 443–485. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barcelona, A. 2000. Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads. Berlin: Mouton de Guyter.Google Scholar
Brône, G., & Vandaele, J. 2009. Cognitive poetics: Goals, gains, and gaps. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carston, R. 2002. Linguistic meaning, communicated meaning, and cognitive pragmatics. Mind and Language, 17(1–2), 127–148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chen, R. 1992. Verbal irony as conversational implicature. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Ball State University.Google Scholar
1993. Conversational implicature and poetic metaphor. Language and Literature (Trinity University), 18, 53–74.Google Scholar
2011. WATER networks: The Chinese radical and beyond. International Journal of Cognitive Linguistics, 1(2), 91–115.Google Scholar
Chen, R., & Yang, D. 2013. Conceptual metaphor: A thing of language as well as thought. Paper presented at the 12th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference. University of Alberta, Canada.Google Scholar
Cummings, L. 2012. Pragmatic disorders. In H-J. Schmid (Ed.), 291–316.Google Scholar
Deignan, A. 2012. Figurative language in discourse. In H-J. Schmid (Ed.), 437–462.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D. 2003. Cultural models of linguistic standardization. In R. Dirven, M. Pütz, & R. Frank (Eds.), Cognitive models in language and thought (Cognitive Linguistics Research 24) (pp. 25–68). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giora, R. 2012. Happy new war: The role of salient meanings and salience-based interpretations in processing utterances. In H-J. Schmid (Ed.), 233–260.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar appproach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics. Vol. 3: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Harder, P. 2012. Emergent and usage-based models of grammar. In H-J. Schmid (Ed.), 507–532.Google Scholar
Hart, C., & Lukeš, D . 2007. Cognitive linguistics in critical discourse analysis: Application and theory. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Horton, W. S. 2012. Shared knowledge, mutual understanding and meaning negotiation. In H-J. Schmid (Ed.), 375–404.Google Scholar
Kasher, A. (Ed.). 1988. Cognitive aspects of language use. Special issue of Journal of Pragmatics, 12(5–6).Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. 2016. Situation-bound utterances in Chinese. East Asian Pragmatics, 1(1), 107–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kleinke, S. 2010. Speaker activity and Grice’s maxims of conversation at the interface of pragmatics and cognitive linguistics. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(12), 3345–3366. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kristiansen, G., & Dirven, R. (Eds.). 2008. Cognitive sociolinguistics: Language variation, cultural models, social systems. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. 1999. Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. II: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Leech, J. 1983. Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Morgan, J. 1978. Two types of convention in indirect speech acts. In P. Cole (Ed.), Syntax and semantics. Vol. 9: Pragmatics (pp. 268–280). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Panther, K-U., Thornburg, L. L., & Barcelona, A. (Eds.). 2009. Metaphor and metonymy in grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pütz, M. 2010. Cognitive linguistics and applied linguistics. In D. Greeraerts, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 1139–1159). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D. 1987. Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H-J. (Ed.). 2012. Cognitive pragmatics (Handbooks of Pragmatics 4). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Semino, E., & Culpeper, J. 2002. Cognitive stylistics: Language and cognition in text analysis. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Singer, M., & Brooke Lea, R. 2012. Inference and reasoning in discourse comprehension. In H-J. Schmid (Ed.), 85–122.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. 1986: Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford / Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Stockwell, P. 2002. Cognitive poetics: An introduction. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. 2000a. Towards a cognitive semantics. Vol. I: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2000b. Towards a cognitive semantics. Vol. II: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. 2012. Contextual salience, domains, and active zones. In H-J. Schmid (Ed.), 123–150.Google Scholar
Trousdale, G. 2012. Grammaticalization, lexicalization and constructionalization from a cognitive-pragmatic perspective. In H-J. Schmid (Ed.), 533–557.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Chen, Rong
2023. The Rituals of Pragmatics. In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Foolen, Ad
2023. CONSTRUCTION PRAGMATICS IN A WIDER CONTEXT. AN ADDITION TO WEN (2022). Lege artis. Language yesterday, today, tomorrow ► pp. 21 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 october 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.