Skip to main content Accessibility help
Hostname: page-component-7d684dbfc8-2bg86 Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2023-09-29T12:35:43.241Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "corePageComponentGetUserInfoFromSharedSession": true, "coreDisableEcommerce": false, "coreDisableSocialShare": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForArticlePurchase": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForBookPurchase": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForElementPurchase": false, "coreUseNewShare": true, "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false

28 - Sociocognitive Pragmatics

from Part III - Approaches and Methods in Sociopragmatics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2021

Michael Haugh
University of Queensland
Dániel Z. Kádár
Hungarian Research Institute for Linguistics, and Dalian University of Foreign Languages
Marina Terkourafi
Leiden University
Get access


The sociocognitive approach (SCA) to pragmatics initiated by Kecskes integrates the pragmatic view of cooperation and the cognitive view of egocentrism and emphasizes that both cooperation and egocentrism are manifested in all phases of communication, albeit to varying extents. While cooperation is an intention-directed practice that is governed by relevance, egocentrism is an attention-oriented trait dominated by salience. In the SCA, communication is considered a dynamic process, in which individuals are not only constrained by societal conditions but also shape them at the same time. Interlocutors are considered as social beings searching for meaning with individual minds embedded in a sociocultural collectivity. As a consequence, the communicative process is characterized by the interplay of two sets of traits that are inseparable, mutually supportive and interactive. Individual traits (prior experience > salience > egocentrism > attention) interact with societal traits (actual situational experience > relevance > cooperation > intention). Each trait is the consequence of the other. Prior experience results in salience, which leads to egocentrism that drives attention. Intention is a cooperation-directed practice that is governed by relevance, which (partly) depends on actual situational experience.

Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


Arundale, R. B. (1999). An alternative model and ideology of communication for an alternative to politeness theory. Pragmatics, 9, 119–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arundale, R. B. (2008). Against (Gricean) intentions at the heart of human interaction. Intercultural Pragmatics, 5(2), 231–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Barr, D. J. and Keysar, B. (2005). Making sense of how we make sense: The paradox of egocentrism in language use. In Colston, H. and Katz, A., eds., Figurative Language Comprehension. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 2143.Google Scholar
Beaver, D. and Stanley, J. (forthcoming). Hustle: The Politics of Language. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bigi, S. (2016). Communicating (with) Care: A Linguistic Approach to the Study of Doctor-Patient Interactions. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
Bunge, M. (1996). Finding Philosophy in Social Science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Capone, A. (2020). Presuppositions as pragmemes: The case of exemplification acts. Intercultural Pragmatics, 17(1), 5377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, R. (1942). Introduction to Semantics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H. (2009). Context and common ground. In Mey, J. L., ed., Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 116–19.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. and Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In Resnick, L. B., Levine, J. M. and Teasley, S.D., eds., Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 127–49.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H., Schreuder, R. and Buttrick, S. (1983). Common ground and the understanding of demonstrative reference. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 245–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colston, H. L. and Katz, A. N. (eds.). (2005). Figurative Language Comprehension: Social and Cultural Influences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Coulson, S. (2000). Semantic Leaps: Frame-Shifting and Conceptual Blending in Meaning-Construction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2000). Explaining Language Change: An Evolutionary Approach. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2009). Impoliteness: Using and understanding the language of offence. ESRC project. Scholar
Durkheim, E. (1982). The Rules of Sociological Method. New York: Simon and Schuster.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elsbach, K. D., Barr, P. S. and Hargadon, A. B. (2005). Identifying situated cognition in organizations. Organization Science, 16(4), 422–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, V. (2006). Lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(4), 491534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkelstein, S., Hambrick, D. C. and Cannella, B. (2008). Strategic Leadership: Theory and Research on Executives, Top Management Teams, and Boards. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
García-Gómez, A. (2020). Intercultural and interpersonal communication failures: Analyzing hostile interactions among British and Spanish university students on WhatsApp. Intercultural Pragmatics, 17(1), 2753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. and Colston, H. (2012). Interpreting Figurative Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gil, J. M. (2019). A relational account of communication on the basis of slips of the tongue. Intercultural Pragmatics, 16(2), 153–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giora, R. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 183206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giora, R. (2003). On Our Mind: Salience, Context and Figurative Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C. and Duranti, A. (eds.). (1992). Rethinking context: An introduction. In Duranti, A. and Goodwin, C., eds., Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 142.Google Scholar
Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, L. and Kecskes, I. (2013). Pragmatics, discourse and cognition. In Stephen, A., Moeschler, R. J. and Reboul, F., eds., The Language–Cognition Interface. Geneva: Librairie Droz, pp. 353–75.Google Scholar
Horton, W. S. and Keysar, B. (1996). When do speakers take into account common ground? Cognition, 59, 91117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kecskes, I. (2003). Szavak és helyzetmondatok értelmezése egy dinamikus jelentésmodell segitségével [Interpretation of words and situation-bound utterances in a dynamic model of meaning]. In Általános Nyelvészeti TanulmányokBudapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, pp. 79105.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2012). Is there anyone out there who is interested in the speaker? Language and Dialogue, 2(2), 285–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2008). Dueling contexts: A dynamic model of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(3), 385406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2010). The paradox of communication: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics and Society, 1(1), 5073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2014). Intercultural Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2017). The effect of salience on shaping speaker’s utterance. Reti, Saperi, Linguaggi, 6(11), 532.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2019). Impoverished pragmatics? The semantics–pragmatics interface from an intercultural perspective. Intercultural Pragmatics, 16(5), 489517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, I. and Mey, J. (eds.). (2008). Intention, Common Ground and the Egocentric Speaker-Hearer. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, I. and Zhang, F. (2009). Activating, seeking and creating common ground: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics and Cognition, 17(2), 331–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keysar, B., Barr, D. and Horton, W. (1998). The egocentric basis of language use: Insights from a processing approach. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 7(2), 4650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keysar, B. (2007). Communication and miscommunication: The role of egocentric processes. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(1), 7184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keysar, B. and Bly, B. (1995). Intuitions of the transparency of idioms: Can one keep a secret by spilling the beans? Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 89109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keysar, B. and Henly, A. (2002). Speakers’ overestimation of their effectiveness. Psychological Science, 13, 207–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khatib, M. and Shakouri, N. (2013). On situating the stance of socio-cognitive approach to language acquisition. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(9), 1590–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
La Mantia, F. (2018). Where is meaning going? Semantic potentials and enactive grammars. Acta Structuralica, 1, 89113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2003). Language and mind: Let’s get the issues straight! In Dedre, G. and Goldin-Meadow, S., eds., Language in Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 2546.Google Scholar
Liu, P. and You, , X. Y. (2019). Metapragmatic comments in web-based intercultural peer evaluation. Intercultural Pragmatics, 16(1), 5785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macagno, F. (2018). A dialectical approach to presuppositions. Intercultural Pragmatics, 15(2), 291313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macagno, F. and Capone, A. (2017). Presuppositions as cancellable inferences. In Allan, K., Capone, A. and Kecskes, I., eds., Pragmemes and Theories of Language Use. Cham, Switzerland: Spinger, pp. 4568.Google Scholar
Macagno, F. and Bigi, S. (2017). Analyzing the pragmatic structure of dialogues. Discourse Studies, 19(2), 148–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin de la Rosa, M. V. and Romero, E. D. (2019). A modality-based approach to the United Nations Security Council’s ambiguous positioning in the resolutions on the Syrian armed conflict. Intercultural Pragmatics, 16(4), 363–89.Google Scholar
Mey, J. (2001). Pragmatics: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Mildorf, J. (2013). Reading fictional dialogue: Reflections on a cognitive-pragmatic reception theory. Anglistik: International Journal of English Studies, 24(2), 105–16.Google Scholar
Moss, M. (2013). Rhetoric and time: Cognition, culture and interaction. Unpublished PhD thesis, Chase Western University.Google Scholar
Ocasio, W. (1997). Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 187206.3.0.CO;2-K>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romero-Trillo, J. and Maguire, L. (2011). Adaptive context: The fourth element of meaning. International Review of Pragmatics, 3, 228–41.Google Scholar
Rossi, M. G. (2016). Metaphors for patient education: A pragmatic-argumentative approach applying to the case of diabetes care. Rivista Italiana di Filosofia del Linguaggio, 10(2), 3448.Google Scholar
Scheppers, F. (2004). Notes on the notions of ‘communication’ and ‘intention’ and the status of speaker and addressee in linguistics. Circle of Linguistics Applied to Communication, 19.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. 2nd ed. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. C. (2002). Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25, 701–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, J. (2018). Precis of how propaganda works. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 96(2), 470–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Starbuck, W. H. and Milliken, F. J. (1988). Executive’s perceptual filters: What they notice and how they make sense. In Hambrick, D. C., ed., The Executive Effect: Concepts and Methods for Studying Top Managers. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 3565.Google Scholar
Van Dijk, T. (2008). Discourse and Context: A Sociocognitive Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wojtaszek, A. (2016). Multimodel integration in the perception of press advertisements within the dynamic model of meaning. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 12(1), 77101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats