Modeling figuration in speech acts

Abstract The main thrust of the contribution of this study is to demonstrate not only the ubiquity and pervasiveness of conceptual metonymy and metaphor in producing and understanding illocutionary acts, i.e., speech acts, but also to account for this observation by explicating the roles of various folk models such as Action, Talk, and Embodiment. The paper maintains that folk models (i.e., cultural models/cognitive schemas intersubjectively shared by a social group) impact grammatical structures and usages and, in themselves, constitute a basis for associative and analogical reasoning, i.e., they give rise to conceptual metonymies and metaphors. The first part of the paper accounts for indirect speech act data with reference to scenarios constructed for three types of illocutionary acts: directives, commissives, and expressives. After providing cultural and linguistic evidence of the psychological validity of the folk model of Action (vs. Talk), an Action Scenario is developed, which forms the basis of the speech act models. The conceptual structure proposed for Illocutionary Scenarios consists of components termed the Before, Core, Result, and After. All indirect speech acts, we maintain, come about by means of constructing utterances that instantiate (or refer to) non-Core components of the model, which are exploited metonymically to index a target (Core) meaning. In the second part of the paper, we focus on the Core component of commissives, declarations, and expressives as manifested in utterances expressing bodily movements and acts of transfer and possession. Such “explicit embodied performatives” rely on a folk model of communication called the Transfer Model of Communication. Interestingly, embodied performatives are indeed figurative; however, they are not felt to be indirect. The paper concludes with questions for future research: (i) What kind of pragmatic constraints operate on the deployment of indirect speech acts? and (ii) Which speech act types are realizable via explicit embodied performatives?

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Cognitive Linguistic Studies
Published
2026-04-17
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00141.pan
Primary Topic
Language, Metaphor, and Cognition
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Modeling figuration in speech acts

Klaus-Uwe Panther, Linda L. Thornburg
Cognitive Linguistic Studies
Language, Metaphor, and Cognition
article

Modeling figuration in speech acts

Klaus-Uwe Panther, Linda L. Thornburg
article en

Abstract

Abstract The main thrust of the contribution of this study is to demonstrate not only the ubiquity and pervasiveness of conceptual metonymy and metaphor in producing and understanding illocutionary acts, i.e., speech acts, but also to account for this observation by explicating the roles of various folk models such as Action, Talk, and Embodiment. The paper maintains that folk models (i.e., cultural models/cognitive schemas intersubjectively shared by a social group) impact grammatical structures and usages and, in themselves, constitute a basis for associative and analogical reasoning, i.e., they give rise to conceptual metonymies and metaphors. The first part of the paper accounts for indirect speech act data with reference to scenarios constructed for three types of illocutionary acts: directives, commissives, and expressives. After providing cultural and linguistic evidence of the psychological validity of the folk model of Action (vs. Talk), an Action Scenario is developed, which forms the basis of the speech act models. The conceptual structure proposed for Illocutionary Scenarios consists of components termed the Before, Core, Result, and After. All indirect speech acts, we maintain, come about by means of constructing utterances that instantiate (or refer to) non-Core components of the model, which are exploited metonymically to index a target (Core) meaning. In the second part of the paper, we focus on the Core component of commissives, declarations, and expressives as manifested in utterances expressing bodily movements and acts of transfer and possession. Such “explicit embodied performatives” rely on a folk model of communication called the Transfer Model of Communication. Interestingly, embodied performatives are indeed figurative; however, they are not felt to be indirect. The paper concludes with questions for future research: (i) What kind of pragmatic constraints operate on the deployment of indirect speech acts? and (ii) Which speech act types are realizable via explicit embodied performatives?

Cognitive Linguistic StudiesVol. 13(1)
University of Almería (ES), Cordoba University (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 17%
Language, Metaphor, and Cognition
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Modeling figuration in speech acts — Klaus-Uwe Panther, Linda L. Thornburg · Cognitive Linguistic Studies (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS