A Lexical-Constructional Model Account of Illocution

  1. Lorena Pérez Hernández 1
  2. Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez 1
  1. 1 Universidad de La Rioja
    info

    Universidad de La Rioja

    Logroño, España

    ROR https://ror.org/0553yr311

Journal:
VIAL, Vigo international journal of applied linguistics

ISSN: 1697-0381

Year of publication: 2011

Issue: 8

Pages: 99-138

Type: Article

More publications in: VIAL, Vigo international journal of applied linguistics

Metrics

Cited by

  • Scopus Cited by: 15 (12-01-2023)
  • Dialnet Metrics Cited by: 8 (26-01-2023)
  • Web of Science Cited by: 14 (12-01-2023)

JCR (Journal Impact Factor)

  • Year 2011
  • Journal Impact Factor: 0.364
  • Journal Impact Factor without self cites: 0.364
  • Article influence score: 0.0
  • Best Quartile: Q3
  • Area: LINGUISTICS Quartile: Q3 Rank in area: 97/162 (Ranking edition: SSCI)

SCImago Journal Rank

  • Year 2011
  • SJR Journal Impact: 0.318
  • Best Quartile: Q2
  • Area: Linguistics and Language Quartile: Q2 Rank in area: 190/724

CIRC

  • Social Sciences: A
  • Human Sciences: A

Scopus CiteScore

  • Year 2011
  • CiteScore of the Journal : 0.5
  • Area: Language and Linguistics Percentile: 53
  • Area: Linguistics and Language Percentile: 52

Bibliographic References

  • Alonso Ramos, M. 2002. “Colocaciones y contorno en la definición lexicográfica”. Lingüística Española Actual 24(1): 63-96.
  • Austin, J.L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Boas, H.C. 2008. “Determining the structure of lexical entries and grammatical constructions in Construction Grammar”. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 6: 113-144.
  • Boas, H.C. 2009. “Verb meanings at the crossroads between higher-level and lower-level constructions”. Lingua 120: 22–34.
  • Brdar-Szabó, R. 2009. “Metonymy in indirect directives: Stand-alone conditional in English, German, Hungarian, and Croatian.” In K-U. Panther, L. Thornburg and A. Barcelona (eds) 2009 Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 323-338
  • Butler, C.S. 2009. “The Lexical Constructional Model: genesis, strengths and challenges”. In C.S. Butler and J. Martín Arista (eds) 2009 Deconstructing Constructions. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 117-152.
  • Dik, S.C. 1989. The Theory of Functional Grammar. Part I: The Structure of the Clause. Dordrecht-Holland: Foris Publications.
  • 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar. Part II: Complex and Derived Constructions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Faber, P. and R. Mairal. 1999. Constructing a Lexicon of English Verbs. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Goldberg, A. 1995. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.
  • 2006. Constructions at Work: the nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Gonzálvez-García, F. 2008. “Towards a constructionist, usage-based reappraisal of interpersonal manipulation: evidence from secondary predication in English and Spanish”. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 57: 109-136.
  • ___. 2009. “The family of object-related depictives in English and Spanish: Towards a usage-based, constructionist analysis”. Language Sciences 31(5): 663-723.
  • Halliday, M.A.K. 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
  • Hudson, D. 1985. “Selected speech act verbs in Walmatjari.” In G. Hutton and K. Gregerson (eds) 1985 Pragmatics In Non-Western Perspective. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics. 63-83.
  • Karttunen, L. 1971. “Implicative verbs”. Language 47(2): 340-358.
  • Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Langacker, R. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  • 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol II: Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  • 1999. Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Leech, G. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. New York: Longman.
  • Levin, B. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Mairal Usón, R. and F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez. 2008 “New challenges for lexical representation within the Lexical-Constructional Model (LCM)” Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 57: 137-158.
  • Mairal Usón, R. and C. Periñán Pascual. 2009. “The anatomy of the lexicon component within the framework of a conceptual knowledge base”. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada 22: 217-244.
  • Mairal Usón, R. and F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez. 2009. “Levels of description and explanation in meaning construction”. In C.S. Butler and J. Martín Arista (eds) 2009 Deconstructing Constructions. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 153- 198.
  • Martín Mingorance, L. 1990. “Functional Grammar and Lexematics.” In J. Tomaszczyk and B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (eds) 1990 Meaning and Lexicography. Amstermdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 227-253.
  • 1995. “Lexical logic and structural semantics: methodological underpinnings in the structuring of a lexical database for natural language processing”. In U. Hoinkes (ed) 1995 Panorama der Lexikalischen Semantik. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. 461-474.
  • Matlock, T. and D.C. Richardson. 2004. “Do eye movements go with fictive motion?” Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.
  • Mel’cuk, I. 1989. “Semantic primitives from the viewpoint of the Meaning-Text Linguistics Theory”. Quaderni di Semantica 10(1): 65-102.
  • Mel’cuk, I., A. Clas, and A. Polguère. 1995. Introduction à la Lexicologie Explicative et Combinatoire. Louvain-la-Neuve: Duculot.
  • Mel’cuk, I. and L. Wanner. 1996. “Lexical functions and lexical inheritance for emotion lexemes in German”. In L. Wanner (ed) 1996 Recent Trends in Meaning-Text Theory. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 209-227.
  • Morgan, J.L. 1978. “Two types of convention in indirect speech acts”. In P. Cole and J.L. Morgan (eds) 1978 Syntax and Semantics: Speech Acts. Vol. 3. New York: Academic. 261-280.
  • Panther, K-U. and L. Thornburg. 1998. “A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation”. Journal of Pragmatics 30: 755-769.
  • 1999 “The potentiality for actuality metonymy in English and Hungarian”. In K-U. Panther and G. Radden (eds) 1999 Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • 2004. “The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction”. Metaphorik.de 6: 91-116.
  • Peña Cervel, M.S. 2009. “Constraints on subsumption in the caused-motion construction.” Language Sciences 31: 740–765.
  • Pérez Hernández, L. 2001. Illocution and Cognition: A Constructional Approach. Logroño: University of La Rioja Press.
  • 2009. “Análisis léxico-construccional de verbos de habla.” Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación 40: 62-92.
  • Pérez Hernández, L. and F.J. Ruiz de Mendoza. 2002. “Grounding, semantic motivation, and conceptual interaction in directive speech acts”. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 259-284.
  • Pustejovsky, J. 1995. The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
  • Risselada, R. 1993. Imperatives and Other Directive Expressions in Latin. A study in the Pragmatics of a Dead Language. Amsterdam Studies in Classical Philology, 2. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben Publisher.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F.J. and J.L. Otal Campo. 1997. “Communication strategies and realization procedures”. ATLANTIS. Journal of the Spanish Association of Anglo-American Studies 19(1): 297-314.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J. and L. Pérez Hernández. 2001. “Metonymy and the grammar: motivation, constraints, and interaction”. Language and Communication 21: 321–357.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J. and A. Baicchi. 2007. “Illocutionary constructions: Cognitive motivation and linguistic realization”. In I. Kecskes and L.R. Horn (eds) 2007 Explorations in Pragmatics. Linguistic, Cognitive and Intercultural Aspects. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J. and R. Mairal Usón. 2007a. “Levels of semantic representation: where lexicon and grammar meet.” Interlingüística 17.
  • 2007b. “High-level metaphor and metonymy in meaning construction”. In G. Radden, K.M. Köpcke, T. Berg, and P. Siemund (eds) 2007 Aspects of Meaning Construction in Lexicon and Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 33–49.
  • 2005-2008. “Challenging systems of lexical representation”. Journal of English Studies 5-6: 325-356.
  • 2008a. “Levels of description and constraining factors in meaning construction: an introduction to the Lexical Constructional Model”. Folia Linguistica. Acta Societatis Linguisticae Europaeae 42(2): 355-400.
  • 2008b. “New challenges for lexical representation with the LexicalConstructional Model”. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 57.
  • 2010. “Constraints on syntactic alternation: lexical-constructional subsumption in the Lexical-Constructional Model”. In P. Guerrero (ed) 2010 Morphosyntactic Alternations in English. Functional and Cognitive Perspectives. Equinox; in press.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J. and F. Gonzálvez-García. 2010. “Illocutionary meaning revisited: subjective transitive constructions in the Lexical Constructional Model.” In P. Stalmaszczyk (ed.) Cognitive and Phenomenological Turns in Philosophy of Language and Linguistics. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Verlag; vol. in prep.
  • Searle, J.R. 1969. Speech Acts. An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • 1975. “Indirect speech acts”. In P. Cole and J.L. Morgan (eds) 1975 Syntax and Semantics: Speech Acts. Vol. 3. New York: Academic. 59-82.
  • 1979. Expression and Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Sperber, D. and D. Wilson. 1995. Relevance, Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
  • Stefanowitsch, A. and S.Th. Gries. 2003. “Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2): 209-243.
  • Stefanowitsch, A. 2003. “A construction-based approach to indirect speech acts”. In K-U. Panther and L. Thornburg (eds) 2003 Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing. 105–126.
  • Talmy, L. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
  • Van Valin, R.D. Jr. 2005. The Syntax-Semantics-Pragmatics Interface: An Introduction to Role and Reference Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Van Valin, R.D. Jr. and R. LaPolla. 1997. Syntax, Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Van Valin , R. D. Jr. and D. P. Wilkins. 1993. “Predicting syntactic structure from semantic representations: remember in English and its equivalents in Mparntwe Arrernte”. In R.D. Jr. Van Valni (ed) 1993 Advances in Role and Reference Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Wierzbicka, A. 1972. Semantic Primitives. Frankfurt: Athenäum.
  • ____. 1985. “A semantic metalanguage for a cross-cultural comparison of speech acts and speech genres”. Language and Society 14: 491-514.
  • ____. 1987. English Speech Act Verbs. A Semantic Dictionary. New York: Academic Press.
  • ____. 1996. Semantics: Primes and Universals. Oxford: OUP.
  • ____. 2002a. “Semantic Primes and Linguistic Typology”. In C. Goddard and A. Wierzbicka (eds) 2002 Meaning and Universal Grammar: Theory and Empirical Findings. Vol.2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 257-300.
  • ____. 2002b. “Semantic Primes and Universal Grammar in Polish”. In C. Goddard and A. Wierzbicka (eds) 2002 Meaning and Universal Grammar: Theory and Empirical Findings. Vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 65-144.