Cover not available

In:Metaphor and Metonymy in the Digital Age: Theory and methods for building repositories of figurative language
Edited by Marianna Bolognesi, Mario Brdar and Kristina Š. Despot
[Metaphor in Language, Cognition, and Communication 8] 2019
► pp. 175–198

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Chapter 7
Figurative reasoning in hedged performatives

 | University of Hamburg
 | Independent scholar
Published online: 6 August 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/milcc.8.08pan
This chapter combines a cognitive linguistic and a pragmatic approach to a specific class of speech acts known as hedged performatives, such as I can offer you a five-year contract, which, despite the modal hedge can on the illocutionary verb offer, conventionally counts as an offer. We demonstrate that analytical tools such as conceptual framing and metonymic inferencing shed light on the meaning and use of hedged performatives. Using corpus data, we show that the target meanings of indirect speech acts, including hedged performatives, are not coded, and therefore not compositionally computable. Rather, they are accessible through cognitive operations that humans perform spontaneously and automatically, making them a challenge to machine-based simulations of such mental processes.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Illocutionary force preserving hedged performatives
    • 2.1Single hedges
      • 2.1.1Modal hedges
      • 2.1.2Propositional attitude hedges
      • 2.1.3Emotive hedges
      • 2.1.4Entailment vs. metonymic inference
    • 2.2Double hedging
      • 2.2.1Emotive predicate plus modal
      • 2.2.2Mood plus modal
      • 2.2.3Conditional plus modal
  • 3.Illocutionary force canceling hedges
  • 4.The metonymic potential of can and must
    • 4.1The metonymic potential of can in assertive speech acts
    • 4.2The metonymic potential of must in assertive speech acts
      • 4.2.1Negatively evaluated and experienced obligations
      • 4.2.2Happily performed obligations
    • 4.3The metonymic potential of can in commissive speech acts
    • 4.4The metonymic potential of must and can in directive speech acts
  • 5.Conclusion and outlook
  • Notes
  • References
References (20)
References
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bierwiaczonek, B. (2013). Metonymy in language, thought and brain. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Denroche, C. (2015). Metonymy and language: A new theory of linguistic processing. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fraser, B. (1975). Hedged performatives. In P. Cole, & J. Morgan (Eds.), Speech acts (Syntax and Semantics 3) (pp. 44–68). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 33–77. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Littlemore, J. (2015). Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to 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: Recontextualizing language and linguistics (pp. 129–146). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). How to encode and infer linguistic actions. Chinese Semiotic Studies, 12(2), 177–214. Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L. (1998). A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(6), 755–769. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003). Metonymies as natural inference and activation schemas: The case of dependent clauses as independent speech acts. In K.-U. Panther, & L. L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 133) (pp. 127–147). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). Metonymy. In D. Geeraerts, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 236–263). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In K.-U. Panther, & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (Human Cognitive Processing 4) (pp. 17–59). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). Towards a theory of metonymy. In V. Evans, B. K. Bergen, & J. Zinken (Eds.), The cognitive linguistics reader (pp. 335–359). London & Oakville: Equinox.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. (2014). On the nature and scope of metonymy in linguistic description and explanation: Towards settling some controversies. In J. Taylot, & J. Littllemore (Eds.), The Bloomsbury companion to cognitive linguistics (pp. 143–166). London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1975). Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole, & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Speech acts (Syntax and Semantics 3) (pp. 59–82). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 7, 1–23. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thornburg, L. L., & Panther, K.-U. 1997. Speech act metonymies. In W.-A. Liebert, G. Redeker, & L. Waugh (Eds.), Discourse and perspective in cognitive linguistics (pp. 205–219). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Latouche, Lucie, Samantha Laporte & Ilse Depraetere
2025. Hedged performatives in spoken American English: recent change and variation in their use. English Language and Linguistics ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Depraetere, Ilse & Gunther Kaltenböck
2023. Hedged Performatives in Spoken American English: A Discourse-oriented Analysis. Journal of English Linguistics 51:3 ► pp. 207 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. Introduction to Cognitive Pragmatics [Cognitive Linguistics in Practice, 4], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 november 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue