Chapter 7
Complementing cognitive linguistics with pragmatics and vice versa
Two illustrations from Chinese
Rong Chen | 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.
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
References (43)
References
Bara, B. G. 2010. Cognitive pragmatics: The mental processes of communication. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bara, B. G. 2011. Cognitive pragmatics. Intercultural Pragmatics, 8(3), 443–485. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Barcelona, A. 2000. Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads. Berlin: Mouton de Guyter.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Brône, G., & Vandaele, J. 2009. Cognitive poetics: Goals, gains, and gaps. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Carston, R. 2002. Linguistic meaning, communicated meaning, and cognitive pragmatics. Mind and Language, 17(1–2), 127–148. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chen, R. 1992. Verbal irony as conversational implicature. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Ball State University.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chen, R. 1993. Conversational implicature and poetic metaphor.
Language and Literature (Trinity University), 18, 53–74.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chen, R. 2011. WATER networks: The Chinese radical and beyond. International Journal of Cognitive Linguistics, 1(2), 91–115.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cummings, L. 2012. Pragmatic disorders. In H-J. Schmid (Ed.), 291–316.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Deignan, A. 2012. Figurative language in discourse. In H-J. Schmid (Ed.), 437–462.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldberg, A. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar appproach to argument structure. Chicago: 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)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Harder, P. 2012. Emergent and usage-based models of grammar. In H-J. Schmid (Ed.), 507–532.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hart, C., & Lukeš, D . 2007. Cognitive linguistics in critical discourse analysis: Application and theory. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Horton, W. S. 2012. Shared knowledge, mutual understanding and meaning negotiation. In H-J. Schmid (Ed.), 375–404.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kasher, A. (Ed.). 1988. Cognitive aspects of language use. Special issue of Journal of Pragmatics
, 12(5–6).![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kecskes, I. 2016. Situation-bound utterances in Chinese. East Asian Pragmatics, 1(1), 107–126. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kristiansen, G., & Dirven, R. (Eds.). 2008. Cognitive sociolinguistics: Language variation, cultural models, social systems. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. 1999. Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. W. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. II: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Leech, J. 1983. Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schiffrin, D. 1987. Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schmid, H-J. (Ed.). 2012.
Cognitive pragmatics (Handbooks of Pragmatics 4). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Singer, M., & Brooke Lea, R. 2012. Inference and reasoning in discourse comprehension. In H-J. Schmid (Ed.), 85–122.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. 1986: Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford / Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stockwell, P. 2002. Cognitive poetics: An introduction. London: Routledge.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Talmy, L. 2000a. Towards a cognitive semantics. Vol. I: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Talmy, L. 2000b. Towards a cognitive semantics. Vol. II: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Taylor, J. 2012. Contextual salience, domains, and active zones. In H-J. Schmid (Ed.), 123–150.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Trousdale, G. 2012. Grammaticalization, lexicalization and constructionalization from a cognitive-pragmatic perspective. In H-J. Schmid (Ed.), 533–557.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
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](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 june 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.