Conceptual Domains of KAU Revisited with Comments on Some Chinese KAU Researches
- 1 Graduate School, Sichuan International Studies University, Chong Qing, China
- 2 College of Foreign Languages, Huaqiao University, Quan Zhou, China
Abstract
Firstly we briefly review the three conceptual domains of Sweetser (1990/2002), “content domain”, “epistemic domain”, and “speech-act domain” (Sweetserian trichotomy), and Shen (2003), the corresponding A(cting), K(nowing), U(ttering) (Shenian trichotomy)—our KAU, finding that they and their followers ignored largely the necessity to distinguish between these three domains in terms of the speaker, the listener and the other. Then, we clarify this issue and on this basis, analyze disadvantages of the study of three conceptual domains at the lexical level, thinking that previous studies failed to highlight the importance of syntactic and pragmatic factors to lexical level and thus did not rise to the pragma-syntactic level. On account of this, we put forward the “Lexico-Pragma-Syntactic Hypothesis” on the three conceptual domains, holding that the three of them should be studied by encompassing the three linguistic levels with pragmatics playing a prevailing role.
- Austin, J. L. (1962/2002). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: OUP. Beijing: Beijing Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
- Chen, Z. A., & Wen, X. (1997). A Tentative Study of Features and Functions of Context. Journal of Foreign Languages, 4, 22-26.
- Deng, S. Y. (2012). A Syntactic Analysis of the Speech Act Domain: Evidence from sin (先) in Cantonese. Linguistic Science, 1, 9-14.
- Fan, Z. Q. (2014). The Mechanism of Three-Domain Theory: Metaphorical or Metonymic? Journal of Zhejiang International Studies University, 1, 20-26.
- Feng, M. (2014). A Lexico-Pragmatic Study of Addressing Term qin (亲). Shandong Foreign Language Teaching Journal, 1, 78-81.
- Goldberg, A. E. (1995). A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.
- Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: OUP.
- Hou, G. J. (2005). Pragma-Linguistic Strategies for Transform-Transfer Modulation. Modern Rhetoric, 5, 40-44.
- Hou, G. J. (2008). Dominant Pragmatic Issues and the Way to Pragmatranslatology. Chengdu: Sichuan University Press.
- Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar (Vol. I): Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
- Langacker, R. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar (Vol. II): Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
- Li, J. X., & Liu, Y. (2004). Differences between youyu (由于) and jiran (既然) in Subjectivity. Chinese Language, 2, 123-128.
- Searle, J. (1969/2001). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: CUP. Beijing: Beijing Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
- Shen, J. X. (2003). Compound Sentences in Three Conceptual Domains: Acting, Knowing, and Uttering. Chinese Language, 3, 195-204.
- Shi, J. S. (2005). Grammaticalization of yaobu (要不): Pragmatic Mechanism and Formal Changes. Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages, 6, 6-13.
- Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986/1995/2001). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell. Beijing: Beijing Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
- Sweetser, E. (1990/2002). From Etymology to Pragmatics Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: CUP. Beijing: Peking University Press.