Motivation and constraints of illocution in the Lexical Constructional Model. The case of the Aux NP construction.
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
Resum
Autor/s
Nuria del Campo Martínez
Universidad de La Rioja, Spain
ABSTRACT
This article addresses the motivation and constraints of illocutionary meaning production. Within the framework of the Lexical Constructional Model (LCM), I explore how our knowledge of illocution is understood in terms of high-level situational models which are activated to produce speech act meaning and the way such operations motivate the conventionalized value of linguistic expressions. In so doing, I analyze the realization procedures of the Aux NP construction in relation to their potential to exploit the semantic base of requestive acts. I will study the most conventional linguistic realizations of the construction and explore the way in which such realizations are used to produce a requestive meaning. The resulting account provides a comprehensive understanding of the constructional nature of illocutionary meaning on the basis of naturally occurring data.
Descàrregues
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Referències
Brdar-Szabó, R. 2009. “Metonymy in indirect directives: Stand-alone conditional in English, German, Hungarian, and Croatian”. In Panther, K.-U., Thornburg, L. and Barcelona, A. (Eds.), Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 323-338.
Butler, C.S. 1996. “On the concept of an interpersonal metafunction in English”. In Berry, M., Butler, C.S., Fawcett and R., Huang, G. (Eds.), Meaning and Form: Systemic Functional Interpretations. Norwood: Ablex Publishing, 151-181.
Butler, C.S. 2009. “The Lexical Constructional Model: Genesis, strengths and challenges”. In Butler, C.S. and Arista, J.M. (Eds.), Deconstructing Constructions. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 117-152.
Dancygier, B. and Sweetser, E. 2005. Mental Spaces in Grammar: Conditional Constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dik, S.C. 1989. The Theory of Functional Grammar. The Structure of the Clause. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
Dik, S.C. 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar. Complex and Derived Constructions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Fauconnier, G. 1985. Mental Spaces. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Goldberg, A.E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Goldberg, A.E. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K. and Matthiessen, C. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 3rd edition. London: Hodder Arnold.
Kövecses, Z. and Radden, G. 1998. “Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view”. Cognitive Linguistics 9, 37-77.
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Langacker, R.W. 1993. “Reference point constructions”. Cognitive Linguistics 4, 1-38.
Langacker, R.W. 1999. Grammar and Conceptualization. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
Leech, G. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Mairal, R., and Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J. 2009. “Levels of description and explanation in meaning construction”. In Butler, C.S. and Arista, J.M. (Eds.), Deconstructing Constructions. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 153-198.
Panther, K.-U. 2005. “The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction”. In Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J., Peña, S. (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 353-386.
Panther, K.-U. and Thornburg, L. 1998. “A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation”. Journal of Pragmatics 30, 755-769.
Panther, K.-U. and Thornburg, L. 2003. “Metonymies as natural inference and activation schemas: The case of dependent clauses as independent speech acts”.
In Panther, K.-U. and Thornburg, L. (Eds.), Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 127-147.
Panther, K.-U. and Thornburg, L. 2004. “The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction”. Metaphorik.de 6, 91-111.
Pérez, L. 1996. “The cognition of requests”. Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense 4, 189-208.
Pérez, L. 2001. Illocution and Cognition: A Constructional Approach. University of La Rioja Press, La Rioja.
Pérez, L. and Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J. 2002. “Grounding, semantic motivation, and conceptual interaction in indirective speech acts”. Journal of Pragmatics 34, 259-284.
Risselada, R. 1993. Imperatives and other Directive Expressions in Latin: A Study in the Pragmatics of a Dead Language. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J. 1999. “La ilocución y la gramática”. In Butler, C.S. Arista, J.M. and Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J. (Eds.), Nuevas Perspectivas en Gramática Funcional. Barcelona: Ariel, 99-171.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J. 2007. “High-level cognitive models: In search of a unified framework for inferential and grammatical behavior”. In Kosecki, K. (Ed.), Perspectives on Metonymy. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang, 11-30.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J., and Baicchi, A. 2007. “Illocutionary constructions: Cognitive motivation and linguistic realization”. In Kecskes, I. and Horn, L. (Eds.), Explorations in Pragmatics: Linguistic, Cognitive, and Intercultural Aspects. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 95-128.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J. and Gonzálvez, F. 2010. “Illocutionary meaning revisited: Subjective-transitive constructions in the Lexical-Constructional Model”. In Stalmaszczyk, P. (Ed.), Turning Points in the Philosophy of Language and Linguistics. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang, 65-77.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J., and Mairal, R. 2008. “Levels of description and constraining factors in meaning construction: An introduction to the Lexical Constructional Model”. Folia Linguistica 42, 355-400.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J. and Mairal, R. 2011. “Constraints on syntactic alternation: Lexical-constructional subsumption in the Lexical Constructional Model”. In Guerrero, P. (Ed.), Morphosyntactic Alternations in English. Functional and Cognitive Perspectives. London/Oakville: Equinox, 62-82.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J. and Otal, J.L. 1997. “Communication strategies and realization procedures”. Atlantis: Revista de la Asociación Española de Estudios Anglonorteamericanos 19, 297-314.
Searle, J. 1975. “Indirect speech acts”. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J.L. (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics 3. New York: Academic, 59-82.
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 1995. Relevance. Communication and Cognition. 2nd edition. Malden: Blackwell.
Stefanowitsch, A. 2003. “A construction-based approach to indirect speech acts”. In Panther, K.-U. and Thornburg, L. (Eds.), Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 105-126.
Talmy, L. 1988. “Force dynamics in language and cognition”. Cognitive Science 12, 49-100.
Taylor, J.R. 1995. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. 2nd edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Wittgenstein, L. 1978. Remarks on the Fundaments of Mathematics. Oxford: Blackwell.