Cover not available

Article published In: Pragmatics
Vol. 36:2 (2026) ► pp.192–224

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

Delineating how PCIs develop into GCIs from a cognition-pragmatics diachronic perspective

A case study of Chinese méimù

 | Shandong University
ORCiD logo with link | Shandong University
 | Shandong Normal University
Published online: 21 January 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.23024.lia
Abstract
The Gricean GCI-PCI divide has long been questioned in linguistic pragmatics. Taking Chinese méimù in the CCL corpus as the case, the present study proposes the cognition-pragmatics diachronic model to examine Grice’s GCI-PCI divide. It is found that with the frequency of repeated usage increasing over time, PCIs develop into GCIs; these two types of conversational implicatures are not easily divided. Semantic change from PCIs to GCIs is a dynamic process of cognition from individual entrenchment to collective conventionalization. By schematization and categorization, the former gradually builds an individual’s knowledge network with many entrenched PCI nodes, while the latter is reflected as sharing some parts of the individual’s knowledge network in the collective minds, i.e., the community’s knowledge network with some conventionalized GCI nodes, further forming socio-cultural conventions in a speech community. During this process, there is a division of labor between context and conventions. Therefore, the diachronic study sheds new light on the relationship between GCIs and PCIs.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
    • 2.1Different viewpoints for the GCI-PCI divide
    • 2.2Different perspectives on the GCI-PCI divide
  • 3.Theoretical framework
  • 4.Data and methodology
  • 5.Cognitive processes in the semantic change of méimù
  • 6.The entrenchment of PCIs of méimù: Individual cognition
  • 7.The conventionalization of GCIs of méimù: Collective cognition
  • 8.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (45)
References
Bach, Kent. 1984. “Default Reasoning: Jumping to Conclusions and Knowing When to Think Twice.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 65 (1): 37–58. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1994. “Conversational Impliciture.” Mind & Language 9 (2): 124–162. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2017. “Drawing More Lines: Response to Depraetere and Salkie.” In Semantics and Pragmatics: Drawing a Line, ed. by Ilse Depraetere, and Raphael Salkie, 39–52. Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bezuidenhout, Anne. 2019. “Noun-Noun Compounds from the Perspective of Relevance Theory.” In Relevance, Pragmatics and Interpretation: Essays in Honour of Deirdre Wilson, ed. by Kate Scott, Billy Clark, and Robyn Carston, 174–186. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009. “The Explicit/Implicit Distinction in Pragmatics and the Limits of Explicit Communication.” International Review of Pragmatics 1 (1): 35–62. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2022. “Relevance Theory and the Philosophy of Language.” In The Cambridge Handbook of the Philosophy of Language, ed. by Piotr Stalmaszczyk, 515–534. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cohen, Jacob. 1960. “A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales.” Educational and Psychological Measurement 201: 37–46. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goossens, Louis. 1990. “Metaphtonymy: The Interaction of Metaphor and Metonymy in Expressions for Linguistic Action.” Cognitive Linguistics 1 (3): 323–340. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grice, Paul. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi, and Friederike Hünnemeyer. 1991. Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huang, Yan. 2014. Pragmatics, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2017. “Implicature.” In The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Yan Huang, 155–179. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, Kasia. 2005. Default Semantics: Foundations of a Compositional Theory of Acts of Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. “Default Semantics.” In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, ed. by Bernd Heine, and Heiko Narrog, 193–221. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. “Salient Meanings, Default Meanings, and Automatic Processing.” In Salience and Defaults in Utterance Processing, ed. by Kasia Jaszczolt, 11–33. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2023. Semantics, Pragmatics, Philosophy: A Journey through Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan. 2021. “Processing Implicatures in English as a Lingua Franca Communication.” Lingua 2561: 1–11. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kronasser, Heinz. 1952. Handbuch der Semasiologie: Kurze Einführung in die Geschichte, Problematik und Terminologie der Bedeutungslehre. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2001. “Discourse in Cognitive Grammar.” Cognitive Linguistics 12 (2): 143–188. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. Essentials of Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2017. “Entrenchment in Cognitive Grammar.” In Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning: How We Reorganize and Adapt Linguistic Knowledge, ed. by Hans-Jörg Schmid, 39–56. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lemmens, Maarten. 2017. “A Cognitive, Usage-Based View on Lexical Pragmatics: Response to Hall.” In Semantics and Pragmatics: Drawing a Line, ed. by Raphael Salkie, and Ilse Depraetere, 101–114. Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen. 1979. “Pragmatics and Social Deixis: Reclaiming the Notion of Conventional Implicature.” In Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, ed. by John Kingston, Eve E. Sweetser, James Collins, Huruko Kawasaki, John Manley-Baser, Dorothy W. Marschak, Catherine O’Connor, David Shaul, Marta Tobey, Henry Thompson, and Katherine Turner, 206–223. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mey, Jacob. 2001. Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Noveck, Ira A. 2018. Experimental Pragmatics: The Making of a Cognitive Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2007. “Entrenchment, Salience, and Basic Levels.” In The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Dirk Geeraerts, and Hubert Cuyckens, 117–138. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(ed.). 2012. Cognitive Pragmatics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. “A Blueprint of the Entrenchment-and-Conventionalization Model.” Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 3 (1): 3–25. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. 1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taylor, John. 1995. “Approaches to Word Meaning: The Network Model (Langacker) and the Two-Level Model (Bierwisch) in Comparison.” In Current Approaches to the Lexicon, ed. by René Dirven, and Johan Vanparys, 3–26. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2002. Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Terkourafi, Marina. 2015. “Conventionalization: A New Agenda for Im/Politeness Research.” Journal of Pragmatics 861: 11–18. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2004. “Historical Pragmatics.” In The Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Laurence Horn, and Gregory Ward, 538–561. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C., and Richard B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre. 2019. “Relevance Theory.” In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics, ed. by Mark Aronoff, 1–27. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber. 2004. “Relevance Theory.” In The Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Laurence Horn, and Gregory Ward, 607–632. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, and Patricia Kolaiti. 2017. “Lexical Pragmatics and Implicit Communication.” In Implicitness: From Lexis to Discourse, ed. by Piotr Cap, and Marta Dynel, 147–175. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhan, Fangqiong, and Chaofen Sun. 2022. “The Development of the Chinese Discourse Marker and Expressive Wanle.” Journal of Pragmatics 1891: 37–54. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhan, Weidong, Rui Guo, Baobao Chang, Yirong Chen, and Long Chen. 2019. “The Building of the CCL Corpus: Its Design and Implementation.” Corpus Linguistics 6 (1): 71–86.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhang, Yanfei, and Shaojie Zhang. 2017. “Explicature Versus Default Meaning: A Response to Alessandro Capone’s Default Semantics and the Architecture of the Mind.” Journal of Pragmatics 1171: 264–272. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2020. “A Cognitive-Pragmatic Study of Non-Scalar Implicatures.” Pragmatics and Society 11 (1): 149–163. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue