Interactive and Interpersonal Meanings of Grammatical Structures
A Cognitive Grammar Analysis of Selected Direct Directive Constructions in Polish
Summary
Excerpt
Table Of Contents
- Cover
- Title
- Copyright
- About the author
- About the book
- This eBook can be cited
- Table of Contents
- Acknowledgements
- List of abbreviations
- List of Figures
- Introduction
- PART I Theoretical prerequisites
- Chapter 1 Setting the ground: selected issues in the classical speech act theory
- 1.0 Introduction
- 1.1 Speech acts – Austin’s basic insights
- 1.2 Searle’s approach to speech acts
- 1.3 Selected controversies in speech act theory
- 1.3.1 Illocutionary force and meaning – fundamentally different or basically alike?
- 1.3.2 Understanding an utterance’s illocutionary force: decoding or inference?
- 1.4 Summary and conclusions
- Chapter 2 Approaches to the problem of the interactive and interpersonal value of utterances
- 2.0 Introduction
- 2.1 Selected approaches to linguistics politeness
- 2.1.1 Brown and Levinson’s model (1987 [1978])
- 2.1.2 Leech’s model (1983 and 2014)
- 2.2 Selected approaches to linguistic impoliteness
- 2.2.1 Culpeper’s model (1996)
- 2.2.2 Bousfield’s model (2008)
- 2.3 A discussion of the models of linguistic politeness and impoliteness under consideration
- 2.4 Intersubjectivity
- 2.5 Concluding remarks
- Chapter 3 Cognitive approaches to issues in speech act theory
- 3.0 Introduction
- 3.1 Speech acts as conceptual categories
- 3.2 Force dynamics in the understanding of directive speech acts
- 3.3 The relation between an utterance’s illocutionary force and its grammatical structure – selected cognitive approaches
- 3.3.1 The Obstacle Hypothesis (Gibbs 1986)
- 3.3.2 Panther and Thornburg’s model of metonymic inferencing in indirect speech acts
- 3.3.3 The role of propositional ICMs in indirect speech acts (Pérez Hernández and Ruiz de Mendoza 2002; Pérez Hernández 2013)
- 3.3.4 The role of the hearer in the directive scenario (Chybowska 2005a and b)
- 3.3.5 A construction-based approach to indirect speech acts (Stefanowitsch 2003)24
- 3.3.6 Takahashi’s analysis of the meaning of the English imperative (2012)
- 3.4 Concluding remarks
- Chapter 4 The theoretical framework
- 4.0 Introduction
- 4.1 Cognitive grammar – the general theoretical landscape
- 4.2 Cognitive grammar as a usage-based approach to language
- 4.3 Cognitive grammar’s views on the nature of linguistic meaning
- 4.3.1 Encyclopedic nature of meaning
- 4.3.2 Conceptualist and imagistic nature of meaning
- 4.4 Cognitive grammar and speech acts
- 4.4.1 Meaning and illocutionary force
- 4.4.2 Interactive frames
- 4.4.3 Grounding
- 4.4.4 The machinery at work
- 4.5 Cognitive grammar and the relevance-theoretic pragmatic theorizing
- 4.6 Concluding remarks
- PART II Analysis
- Chapter 5 The imperative constructions – a semantic and pragmatic characterization of their main components
- 5.0 Introduction
- 5.1 The imperative – basic grammatical facts
- 5.2 Perfective and imperfective imperatives33
- 5.2.1 Perfective and imperfective imperatives in context-situated spoken colloquial discourse
- 5.2.2 A study of corpus examples34
- 5.2.3 The proposed analysis36
- 5.2.4 How the proposed analysis relates to alternative accounts37
- 5.3 Distance maintenance and distance reduction in imperative constructions
- 5.3.1 A note on distance-regulating structures in Polish
- 5.3.2 A characterizaton of the notion of pragmatic distance
- 5.3.3 A note on standard uses of distance-regulating structures in Polish
- 5.3.4 Distance-regulating structures as a means of negotiating the speaker-hearer interpersonal distance
- 5.4 Concluding remarks
- Chapter 6 Directive infinitives
- 6.0 Introduction
- 6.1 The grammatical and conceptual make-up of the (Proszę1 sg. non-past indicat.) + Vinf. constructions
- 6.2 An overview of typical uses of the directive infinitive constructions
- 6.3 Concluding remarks
- Chapter 7 An analysis of pragmatic effects of selected “special” variants of direct directive constructions: a construction’s grammatical make-up and context in collaboration
- 7.0 Introduction
- 7.1 The V2sg. imp. construction
- 7.1.1 The V2 sg. imperf. imp. midat. (‘me’) construction
- 7.1.2 The Panie Xvoc. ‘Mr X’, V2 sg. imperf. imp. construction
- 7.2 The distance-maintaining imperative construction
- 7.3 The directive infinitive construction
- 7.4 Concluding remarks
- Chapter 8 Conclusions
- 8.0 Introduction
- 8.1 Summary of the analysis
- 8.2 Some general observations and conclusions
- 8.3 Some venues for future research
- 8.4 The final note
- References
- Index of Names
- Series index
Acknowledgements
I am greatly indebted to Professor Elżbieta Górska, Professor Elżbieta Tabakowska, and Prof. Ronald Langacker for the fact that I could be their student – I consider this as a great privilege.
My thanks go also to Professor Ewa Wałaszewska, who was kind enough to offer me her time and expertise to comment on earlier versions of parts of this work.
I would like to thank Jędruś, Zosia, and Piotrek for bearing with me and for being there for me.
Needless to say, all the shortcomings of this work are entirely my own.
Agata Kochańska
Warsaw, November 2021
List of abbreviations
aug. |
– augmentative |
dat. |
– dative |
dim. |
– diminutive |
imp. |
– imperative |
imp. particle |
– imperative particle |
imperf. |
– imperfective aspect |
indicat. |
– indicative mood |
inf. |
– infinitive |
ncp |
– National Corpus of Polish |
nom. |
– nominative |
non-past |
– non-past tense |
past |
– past tense |
perf. |
– perfective aspect |
pl. |
– plural |
pwn |
– PWN Corpus of Polish |
refl. |
– reflexive |
sg. |
– singular |
voc. |
– vocative |
1 sg. |
– 1st person singular |
2 sg. |
– 2nd person singular |
3 sg. |
– 3rd person singular |
1 pl. |
– 1st person plural |
2 pl |
.– 2nd person plural |
3 pl. |
– 3rd person plural |
List of figures
Fig. 2.1Strategies for performing face-threatening acts (cf. Brown and Levinson 1987 [1978]: 60)
Fig. 3.4A revised model of the directive speech act scenario (cf. Chybowska 2005b: 218)
Fig. 4.1The difference in construal between go away and gone (cf. e.g. Langacker 1988b: 62, Fig. 6)
Fig. 4.2The optimal viewing arrangement (cf. e.g. Langacker 1987: 129, Fig. 3.5(a))
Fig. 4.3The egocentric viewing arrangement (cf. e.g. Langacker 1987: 129, Fig. 3.5(b))
Fig. 4.4The difference in construal between go away and go away from Mary
Fig. 5.1Basic schema of temporal definiteness (cf. Dickey 2020: 545)
Fig. 5.2Basic schema of temporal indefiniteness (cf. Dickey 2020: 545)
Introduction
When a native speaker of Polish needs to perform a directive speech act, she1 has at her disposal quite a number of grammatical constructions2 that may be conventionally employed for that purpose. In addition to a variety of constructions which may be used as indirect directive speech acts, a speaker of Polish may also select from a range of constructions which seem to be specifically designed for use in directive utterances. Some of the constructions in question are exemplified in (1) – (3) below:
(1) a. Piotreknom./voc., nakryj2 sg. perf. imp. do (lit. to) stołu!3
‘Piotrek, set the table, [please]’
b. Piotreknom./voc., nakrywaj2 sg. imperf. imp. do (lit. to) stołu!
‘Piotrek, [do] set the table, [please]’
c.Piotreknom./voc., nakrywaj2 sg. imperf. imp. midat. (lit. me) do (lit. to) stołu, ale już (lit. but now)!
‘Piotrek, set the table, now!’
d. Siadaj2 sg. imperf. imp. pannom. (lit. Mr./Sir/gentleman)!
‘[Mister], you sit down!’
(2) a. ←21 | 22→Niechimp. particle pannom. (lit. Mr./Sir/gentleman) otworzy3 sg. non-past indicat. okno!
[Could, you please] open the window, Sir?’
b. Pannom. (lit. Mr./Sir/gentleman) otworzy3 sg. non-past indicat. okno!
X‘[Mister], could you open the window?’
Details
- Pages
- 288
- Publication Year
- 2022
- ISBN (PDF)
- 9783631873410
- ISBN (ePUB)
- 9783631874516
- ISBN (MOBI)
- 9783631874523
- ISBN (Hardcover)
- 9783631872826
- DOI
- 10.3726/b19494
- Language
- English
- Publication date
- 2022 (January)
- Keywords
- speech acts linguistic (im)politeness clausal grounding pragmatic distance (im)perfective imperative directive infinitive
- Published
- Berlin, Bern, Bruxelles, New York, Oxford, Warszawa, Wien, 2022. 288 pp., 13 fig. b/w, 2 tables.
- Product Safety
- Peter Lang Group AG