Abstract
This contribution discusses a fundamental semiotic problem, i.e., how much of a linguistic message is explicitly coded and how much content is implied by the speaker and has to be inferred by the addressee. This coding problem is demonstrated with two types of speech act constructions, viz. (i) explicit performative utterances in which the illocutionary act performed by the speaker is overtly named, and (ii) hedged performatives in which the illocutionary verb is hedged by a modal or attitudinal expression. One focus of the contribution is on performative utterances that are hedged by can and must, in particular, cases where the illocutionary act denoted by the performative verb is not affected by the modal (illocutionary-force preserving hedged performatives). Notwithstanding, the modals contribute substantially to the overall meaning of the utterance. The modal can pragmatically implies a positive evaluative and emotive stance on the illocutionary act and its propositional content, whereas must often implies a negative evaluation and feelings of discontentment and displeasure. The results of this study confirm the thesis that pragmatic, in particular, metonymic, inferencing plays a central role in the elaboration of linguistic meaning.
Acknowledgments
This contribution is dedicated to Professor Jie Zhang, Dean of the School of Foreign Languages and Cultures, who invited me to spend twelve months as Distinguished Visiting Professor at Nanjing Normal University over a period of three years (2012–2014). I am very grateful for Professor Zhang’s hospitality and support, which allowed me to work on the beautiful Suiyuan campus, to present my research to doctoral students and interested faculty, and to collaborate with colleagues in various publication projects. My reflections on the semiotics of speech acts are intended as a homage to Professor Zhang’s outstanding academic leadership that has made Nanjing Normal University a center for semiotics and cognitive linguistics in China.
References
Akmajian, A., Demers, R., Farmer, A., & Harnish, R. (2010). Linguistics: An introduction to language and communication (6th ed.). Cambridge, MA, & London: The MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Austin, J. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Ducrot, O. (1972). Dire et ne pas dire: Principes de sémantique linguistique. Paris: Hermann.Search in Google Scholar
Fraser, B. (1975). Hedged performatives. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics 3 (pp. 44–68). New York: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar
Geis, M., & Zwicky, A. (1971). Invited inferences. Linguistic Inquiry, 2(4), 561–566.Search in Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, & J. Morgan (Eds.), Speech acts [Syntax and Pragmatics 3] (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar
Heal, J. (1974). Explicit performatives and statements. Philosophical Quarterly, 24, 106–121.Search in Google Scholar
Levinson, S. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U. (2005). The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. In F. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez & S. Peña Cervel (Eds.),Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction [Cognitive Linguistics Research 32] (pp. 353–386). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U. (2015). Metonymic relationships among actuality, modality, evaluation, and emotion. In J. Daems, E. Zenner, K. Heylen, D. Speelman, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Change of paradigms: New paradoxes [Applications of Cognitive Linguistics 31] (pp. 129–146). Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Search in Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Köpcke, K.-M. (2008). A prototype approach to sentences and sentence types. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 6, 83–112.Search in Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. (1998). A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(6), 755–769.Search in Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. (1999). The POTENTIALITY FOR ACTUALITY metonymy in English and Hungarian. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought [Human Cognitive Processing 4] (pp. 333–357). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. (2000). The EFFECT FOR CAUSE metonymy in English grammar. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads [Topics in English Linguistics 30] (pp. 215–231). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. (2007). Metonymy. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 236–263). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5, 1-23.Search in Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1979). Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (2009). Philosophical investigations. (G. Anscombe, P. Hacker, & J. Schulte, Trans.). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
- Appendix: List of abbreviations
- A
Act
- ACT
Action
- ADJ
Adjective
- ASS
Assertive
- CL
Clause
- COM
Commissive
- DECL
Declaration
- DIR
Directive
- EXPR
Expressive
- F
Illocutionary Force
- FIN
Finite
- FUT
Future
- H
Hearer
- ILL
Illocutionary
- INF
Infinitive
- ING
Progressive
- NP
Noun Phrase
- P
Preposition
- p
propositional content
- PERF
Performative
- PL
Plural
- PRED
Predicate
- PRES
Present Tense
- S
Speaker
- SUBJ
Subjunctive
- V
Verb
- VP
Verb Phrase
© 2016 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston