Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Fundamentals of Sociopragmatics
- Part II Topics and Settings in Sociopragmatics
- Part III Approaches and Methods in Sociopragmatics
- 27 Interpersonal Pragmatics
- 28 Sociocognitive Pragmatics
- 29 Conversation Analysis and Sociopragmatics
- 30 Corpus Pragmatics
- 31 Variational Pragmatics
- 32 Historical Sociopragmatics
- 33 Emancipatory Pragmatics
- 34 Cross-Cultural and Intercultural Pragmatics
- 35 Second Language Pragmatics
- Index
- References
28 - Sociocognitive Pragmatics
from Part III - Approaches and Methods in Sociopragmatics
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 April 2021
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Fundamentals of Sociopragmatics
- Part II Topics and Settings in Sociopragmatics
- Part III Approaches and Methods in Sociopragmatics
- 27 Interpersonal Pragmatics
- 28 Sociocognitive Pragmatics
- 29 Conversation Analysis and Sociopragmatics
- 30 Corpus Pragmatics
- 31 Variational Pragmatics
- 32 Historical Sociopragmatics
- 33 Emancipatory Pragmatics
- 34 Cross-Cultural and Intercultural Pragmatics
- 35 Second Language Pragmatics
- Index
- References
Summary
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.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics , pp. 592 - 615Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Arundale, R. B. (1999). An alternative model and ideology of communication for an alternative to politeness theory. Pragmatics, 9, 119–54.Google Scholar
Arundale, R. B. (2008). Against (Gricean) intentions at the heart of human interaction. Intercultural Pragmatics, 5(2), 231–56.Google 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. 21–43.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), 53–77.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1942). Introduction to Semantics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google 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. www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/projects/impoliteness/.Google Scholar
Elsbach, K. D., Barr, P. S. and Hargadon, A. B. (2005). Identifying situated cognition in organizations. Organization Science, 16(4), 422–33.Google Scholar
Evans, V. (2006). Lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(4), 491–534.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), 27–53.Google 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.Google Scholar
Gil, J. M. (2019). A relational account of communication on the basis of slips of the tongue. Intercultural Pragmatics, 16(2), 153–85.Google Scholar
Giora, R. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 183–206.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. 1–42.Google Scholar
Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google 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, 91–117.Google Scholar
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 Tanulmányok. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, pp. 79–105.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2012). Is there anyone out there who is interested in the speaker? Language and Dialogue, 2(2), 285–99.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2008). Dueling contexts: A dynamic model of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(3), 385–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2010). The paradox of communication: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics and Society, 1(1), 50–73.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2017). The effect of salience on shaping speaker’s utterance. Reti, Saperi, Linguaggi, 6(11), 5–32.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2019). Impoverished pragmatics? The semantics–pragmatics interface from an intercultural perspective. Intercultural Pragmatics, 16(5), 489–517.Google 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.Google 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), 46–50.Google Scholar
Keysar, B. (2007). Communication and miscommunication: The role of egocentric processes. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(1), 71–84.Google 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, 89–109.Google 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.Google Scholar
La Mantia, F. (2018). Where is meaning going? Semantic potentials and enactive grammars. Acta Structuralica, 1, 89–113.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. 25–46.Google Scholar
Liu, P. and You, , X. Y. (2019). Metapragmatic comments in web-based intercultural peer evaluation. Intercultural Pragmatics, 16(1), 57–85.Google Scholar
Macagno, F. (2018). A dialectical approach to presuppositions. Intercultural Pragmatics, 15(2), 291–313.Google 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. 45–68.Google Scholar
Macagno, F. and Bigi, S. (2017). Analyzing the pragmatic structure of dialogues. Discourse Studies, 19(2), 148–68.Google 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
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, 187–206.Google 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), 34–48.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
Stanley, J. (2018). Precis of how propaganda works. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 96(2), 470–74.Google 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. 35–65.Google Scholar
Van Dijk, T. (2008). Discourse and Context: A Sociocognitive Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wojtaszek, A. (2016). Multimodel integration in the perception of press advertisements within the dynamic model of meaning. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 12(1), 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 1
- Cited by