Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T15:22:57.129Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

9 - Sociopragmatics and Context

from Part III - Pragmatic Approaches to Context

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 November 2023

By
Sophia Marmaridou
Edited by
Jesús Romero-Trillo
Jesús Romero-Trillo
Affiliation:
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
Get access

Summary

Sociopragmatics typically refers to sociocultural parameters of the communicative use of language (Leech 1983; Thomas 1983). This concept has long been taken up in the area of applied linguistics (Kaspar & Rose 2002) and historical pragmatics (Jucker 2006; Culpeper 2009). Context per se is difficult to pin down and, therefore, its association with language in a principled manner is a challenging task. In view of the above, and within a Construction Grammar framework (Fried and Östman 2004), this chapter aims to show that the object of sociopragmatic analysis can in fact be viewed as the domain of socioculturally defined genres that are often associated with particular (genre) constructions reflecting a speaker’s knowledge of the language (Nikiforidou 2016). The question to be addressed in this view is to what extent speakers’ understanding of context is systematic, conventional, and, hence, an inherent part of grammar and the description of language. The data to be discussed include recipes, labels, couple talk, stage directions, and TV talk. It will be argued that sociopragmatic context, typically encoded at the meso-level of genre, can be accounted for as a set of specifications that are routinely incorporated in the description of a language’s grammatical constructions.

Keywords

Applied LinguisticsHistorical PragmaticsConstruction Grammargenregenre constructionsrecipeslabelesecouple talkstage directionsTV talk
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Language in Context , pp. 205 - 224
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

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.)

References

Antonopoulou, E., and Nikiforidou, K. (2011). Construction grammar and conventional discourse: A construction-based approach to discoursal incongruity. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(10), 2594–2609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antonopoulou, E., Nikiforidou, K., and Tsakona, V. (2015). Construction grammar and discoursal incongruity. In Brône, G., Feyaerts, K. and Veale, T., eds., Cognitive Linguistics Meets Humor Research: Current trends and new developments. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 289–314.Google Scholar
Archer, D. (2017). Context and historical (socio-)pragmatics 20 years on. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 18(2), 315–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Archer, D., and Culpeper, J. (2009). Identifying key sociophilological usage in plays and trial proceedings (1640–1760): An empirical approach via corpus annotation. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 10(2), 286–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Chang, Y.-F. (2011). Interlanguage pragmatic development: The relation between pragmalinguistic competence and sociopragmatic competence. Language Sciences, 33(5), 786–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, W.-L. M., and Haugh, M. (2017). Intercultural communicative competence and emotion among second language learners of Chinese. In Kecskes, I. and Sun, C. (eds.), Key Issues in Chinese as a Second Language Research (pp. 267–286). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Citron, F., and Goldberg, A. (2014). Metaphorical sentences are more emotionally engaging than their literal counterparts. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26(11), 2585–2595.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Corbett, J. (2006). Genre and genre analysis. In Brown, K. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (pp. 26–32). Boston: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Devlin, A. M. (2019). The interaction between duration of study abroad, diversity of loci of learning and sociopragmatic variation patterns: A comparative study. Journal of Pragmatics, 146, 121–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diewald, G. (2015) Modal particles in different communicative types. Constructions and Frames, 7(2), 218–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fetzer, A. (2011). Pragmatics as a linguistic concept. In Bublitz, W. and Norrick, N. R. (eds.), Foundations of Pragmatics (pp. 23–50). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar
Fillmore, Ch., Kay, P., and O’Connor, M. C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 64(3), 501–538.Google Scholar
Fischer, K. (2015). Situation in grammar or in frames? Evidence from the so-called baby talk register. Constructions and Frames, 7(2), 258–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzmaurice, S. M. (2009). The sociopragmatics of a lovers’ spat: The case of the eighteenth-century courtship letters of Mary Pierrepont and Edward Wortley. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 10(2), 215–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fried, M., and Östman, J.-O. (2004). Construction Grammar: A thumbnail sketch. In Fried, Μ and Östman, J.-O. (eds.), Construction Grammar in a Cross-Language Perspective (pp. 11–86). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. IX: Pragmatics (pp. 113–128). New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar
Herring, S. C., Stein, D., and Virtanen, T. (2013). Introduction to the pragmatics of computer-mediated communication. In Herring, S. C., Stein, D., and Virtanen, T. (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics of Computer-Mediated Communication (pp. 3–31). Berlin: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ifantidou, E. (2019). Relevance and metaphor understanding in a second language. In Scott, K., Clark, B., and Carston, R. (eds.), Relevance: Pragmatics and Interpretation (pp. 218–30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
Jacobs, A., and Jucker, A. H. (1995). The historical perspective in pragmatics. In Jucker, A. H. (ed.), Historical Pragmatics: Pragmatic Developments in the History of English (pp. 3–33). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jucker, A. H. (2006). Historical pragmatics. In Östman, J.-O. and Verschueren, J. (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics 2006 (pp. 1–14). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kasper, G., and Rose, K. (2002). Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2012). Sociopragmatics and cross-cultural and intercultural studies. In Allan, K. and Jaszczolt, K. M. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 599–616). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind (pp. 462–585). Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. N. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. N. (1992). Activity types and language. In Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (eds.), Talk at Work (pp. 66–100). The Hague: Mouton. Google Scholar
Marmaridou, S. (2000). Pragmatic Meaning and Cognition. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marmaridou, S. (2011). Pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics. In Bublitz, W., and Norrick, N. R. (eds.), Foundations of Pragmatics (pp. 77–106). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar
Marmaridou, S. (forthcoming). Re-cycling discourse constructions: The case of [apo NPAcc. (ine3rd p. sing.) ne/oçi] in Greek TV shows.Google Scholar
McNamara, T., and Roever, C. (2006). The social dimension of proficiency: How testable is it? Language Learning, 56(2): 43–79.Google Scholar
Morris, Ch. W. (1938). Foundations of the Theory of Signs. In Carnap, N. O. R. and Morris, C. W. (eds.), International Encyclopaedia of Unified Science (Vol. I, pp. 77–138). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Moser, A., and Panaretou, E. (2011). Why a mother’s rule is not a law: The role of context in the interpretation of Greek laws. In Fetzer, A. and Oishi, E. (eds.), Context and Contexts (pp. 11–40). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikiforidou, K. (2016). “Genre knowledge” in a constructional framework: Lexis, grammar and perspective in folk tales. In Stukker, N., Spooren, W., and Steen, G. (eds.), Genre in Language, Discourse and Cognition (pp. 331–360). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikiforidou, K. (2018). Genre and constructional analysis. Pragmatics and Cognition, 25(3), 543–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikiforidou, K. (2021). Grammatical variability and the grammar of genre: Constructions, conventionality, and motivation in “stage directions.” Special issue of Journal of Pragmatics (eds. Matsumoto, Y. and Iwasaki, S.), Multiplicity in Grammar: Modes, Genres and Speaker’s Knowledge, 173, 189–199.Google Scholar
Östman, J.-O. (2005). Construction discourse: A prolegomenon. In Östman, J.-O. and Fried, M. (eds.), Construction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions (pp. 121–144). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piata, A. (2016). Genre “out of the box”: A conceptual integration analysis of poetic discourse. In Stukker, N., Spooren, W., and Steen, G. (eds.), Genre in Language, Discourse and Cognition (pp. 225–250). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romero-Trillo, J. (2007). Adaptive Management in discourse: The case of involvement discourse markers in English and Spanish conversations. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 6(1), 81–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romero-Trillo, J., and Maguire, L. (2011). Adaptive context: The fourth element of meaning. International Review of Pragmatics, 3(2), 228–241.Google Scholar
Rose, K. R. (2000). An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22(1), 27–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruppenhofer, J., and Michaelis, L. (2010). A constructional account of genre-based argument omissions. Constructions and Frames, 2(2), 158–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In Cole, P., P. and Morgan, J. (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. III: Speech Acts (pp. 59–82). New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar
Stukker, N., Spooren, W., and Steen, G. (2016). Introduction. In Stukker, N., Spooren, W., and Steen, G. (eds.), Genre in Language, Discourse and Cognition (pp. 1–14). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terkourafi, M. (2009). On de-limiting context. In Bergs, A. and Diewald, G. (eds.), Contexts and Constructions (pp. 17–42). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, M. (2021). Inference and Implicature. In Haugh, M, Kadar, D. Z., and Terkourafi, M (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics (pp. 30–47). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, J. A. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verschueren, J. (1999). Understanding Pragmatics. London: Hodder Arnold.Google Scholar
Verschueren, J. (2021). Reflexivity and meta-awareness. In Haugh, M., Kadar, D. Z., and Terkourafi, M. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics (pp. 117–139). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org 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 @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ 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
×