Chapter published in:
Studies in Figurative Thought and Language
Edited by Angeliki Athanasiadou
[Human Cognitive Processing 56] 2017
► pp. 76–104

How to do things with metonymy in discourse

| University of Pavia
This chapter addresses the role of figurative thought at the level of discourse and investigates the metonymic grounding of interpersonal communication. With the focus placed upon illocutionary constructions realized through the interrogative sentence type, it aims to delineate the way in which conceptual metonymy contributes to moulding indirect illocutions. The research is conducted under the umbrella of the Cost-Benefit Cognitive Model, which conceives of illocutions as entrenched, productive and replicable form-function pairings. The qualitative analysis of attested corpus data retrieved from the bnc, the coca, and the WebCorp provides a depiction of the variety and complexity of some constructional procedures along with the socio-cultural variables licensing them, and it prompts the proposal of a Thinking-for-Metonymic-Speaking (TFMS) process that motivates illocutionary indirectness.
Keywords: illocutionary constructions, interrogative sentence type, indirect illocutions, Thinking-for-Metonymic-Speaking (TFMS) process
Published online: 26 April 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.56.03bai
References

References

Baicchi, A.
2009 The AUX-NP Requestive Construction and its metonymic grounding within the Lexical Constructional Model. Lecture delivered at the International CRAL Conference 2009. University of La Rioja.Google Scholar
2012 On acting and thinking. Studies bridging between speech acts and cognition. Pisa, ETS.Google Scholar
2014 Speech acts as high-level situational cognitive models. In M. E. Schulze-Busacker & V. Fortunati (Eds.), Par les siècles et par les genres (23–50). Paris: Classiques Garnier.Google Scholar
2015 Conceptual metaphor in the complex dynamics of illocutionary meaning. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 13, 106–139. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baicchi, A., & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibánéz, F. J.
2010 The cognitive grounding of illocutionary constructions. Textus, XXIII(3), 543–563.Google Scholar
Butler C. S.
1996 On the concept of an interpersonal metafunction in English. In M. Berry, C. S. Butler, R. Fawcett & G. Huang (Eds.), Meaning and form: Systemic functional interpretations. Norwood, N.J. Ablex: 151–182.Google Scholar
Butler, C. S., & Gonzálves-García, F.
2014 Exploring functional-cognitive space. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E.
2014 What does grammar tell us about social actions? Pragmatics 24(3), 623–647. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Del Campo, N.
2013 Illocutionary constructions in English: Cognitive motivation and linguistic realization. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Dik, S.
1997 The theory of functional grammar: Complex and derived constructions. Berlin & New York, Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dirven, R.
(2005) Major strands in Cognitive Linguistics. In A. Baicchi et al. (Eds.), Modeling thought and constructing meaning. Cognitive models in interactions. (pp. 11–40). Milan, Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
Givón, T.
1990 Syntax. A functional-typological introduction. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R.
1999 Speaking and thinking with metonymy. In K.U Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (61–76), Amsterdam, John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005 Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge, MA, Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
1995 A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2006 Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Halliday M. A. K., & Matthiessen C.
2004 An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 3rd edition. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G.
1987 Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R.
(1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites . Stanford, Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Leech, G.
1983 Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Leech G.
1990 Semantics. The Study of Meaning. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Mairal Usón, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
2009 Levels of description and explanation in meaning construction. In C. S. Butler & J. Martin Arista (Eds.), Deconstructing constructions (153–198). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L.
1998 A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 755–769. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1999 The potentiality for actuality metonymy in English and Hungarian. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (333–357). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Panther, K-U., and Thornburg
Eds. 2003 Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Peirce, C. S.
1965 Collected Papers. C. Hartshorne and P. Weiss, eds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pérez-Hernández, L.
2009 Análisis léxico-construccional de verbos de habla. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación, 40, 62–93.Google Scholar
2012 Saying something for a particular purpose: Constructional compatibility and constructional families. RESLA, ,, 189–210.Google Scholar
2013 Illocutionary constructions: (multiple source)-in-target metonymies, illocutionary ICMs, and specification links. Language & Communication, 33, 128–149. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pérez-Hernández, L., Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
2002 Grounding, semantic motivation, and conceptual interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(3), 259–284. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 A lexical-constructional model account of illocution. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics 8, 99–138.Google Scholar
Radden, G., Köpcke, K.-M., Berg, T., & Siemund, P.
2007 (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Baicchi, A.
2006 Illocutionary constructions. Linguistic LAUD Agency. Series A. General & Theoretical Papers. Essen, LAUD 2006. Paper no. 668.Google Scholar
2007 Illocutionary constructions: Cognitive motivation and linguistic realization. In I. Kecskes & L. Horn (Eds.), Explorations in pragmatics: Linguistic, cognitive, and intercultural aspects (95–128). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera Masegosa, A.
2014 Cognitive modeling: A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Gonzálvez-García, F.
2011 Constructional Integration in the Lexical Constructional Model. British and American Studies, XVII, 75–95.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Mairal Usón, R.
2008 Levels of description and constraining factors in meaning construction: An introduction to the Lexical Constructional Model. Folia Linguistica, 42(2), 355–400.Google Scholar
Sadock, J., & Zwicky, A.
1985 Speech act distinctions in syntax. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description: Clause structure (155–196). Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Searle, J.
1969 Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D.
1996 From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking”. In J. Gumperz & S. Levinson, (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (70–96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H.
1996 Reconsidering power and distance. Journal of Pragmatics, 26 (1), 1–24. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D.
1995 Relevance. Communication and Cognition. 2nd edition. Oxford, Blackwell.Google Scholar
Taylor, J.
1995 Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Categorization. Oxford: Oxford University press.Google Scholar
Thornburg, L., & Panther, K. U.
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verschueren, J.
1985 What people say they do with words. Prolegomena to an empirical-conceptual approach to linguistic action. Norwood, N.J., Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar