Social Contexts of Indirect Requests in Polish and Hungarian

Agnieszka Veres-Guspiel


The paper presents the influence of social context on illocutionary metonymy in directives evoked by various elements of request scenarios. As the human language activity reflects the physical and social worlds of the intersubjective context (cf. Verschueren 1999), the recognized and construed social relations have an impact not only on addressive forms, but also on the appearance of other elements such as indirectness and its scalarity.

Indirect directives are based on illocutionary metonymic scenarios (Panther and Thornburg 1998) and by evoking a part of the scenario referring to the core action they give access to the illocutionary scenario domain. The scalar nature of indirectness (Panther and Thornburg 1998, see also Panther and Thornburg 1999, 2007 and Thornburg and Panther 1997), depends on the number of evoked elements and their conceptual distance from the core of the request. It can be based on conventional grammatical structures (e.g. auxiliary verbs) or giving hints by only introducing the action scenario. As Veres-Guśpiel (2013)  has shown the chosen type of indirectness is influenced by social context and the weight of a directive (for the latter, see also Csató and Pléh 1988, Pléh 2012).

The main question of the presented research regards types of illocutionary metonymy, that can be experienced in various social contexts and what their frequency of use is.


social contexts, indirectness, illocutionary metonymy, illocutionary scenarios

Full Text:



Barcelona, Antonio. 2000. Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Blum-Kulka, Shoshana and Olshtain, Elite. 1984. “Request and Apologies.” Applied Linguisitics 3: 196-213.

Brdar, Mario, and Rita Brdar-Szabó. 2017 “How Metonymy and Grammar Interact” In Studies in Figurative Thought and Language, ed. Angeliki Athanasiadou, 126–149. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Brown, Penelope, and Stephen Levinson. 1987. Politeness. Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Croft, William. 1993. “The Role of Domains in the Interpretation of Metaphors and Metonymies.” Cognitive Linguistics 4: 335–370.

Croft, William. 2009. “Towards a Social Cognitive Linguistics.” In New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics, ed. Evans Vyvyan and Poursel Stephanie, 395–420. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Csató, Valéria, and Csaba Pléh. 1988. “Indirekt felszólítások a magyar nyelvben. (Indirect Directives in Hungarian.)” Magyar Pszichológiai Szemle: 99–115.

Fillmore, Charles J. (1982) 2006. “Frame Semantics.” In Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings, ed. Geeraerts Dirk, 373–400. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Gazzaniga, Michael. (2008) 2011. Istota człowieczeństwa. (Human. The science Behind what makes us unique). Sopot: Smak słowa.

Kövecses, Zoltán, and Grünter Radden. 1998. “Metonymy: Developing a Cognitive Linguistic View.” Cognitive Linguistics 9 (1): 37–77.

Kövecses, Zoltán. 2005. A metafora. Gyakorlati bevezetés a kognitív metaforaelméletbe. (Metaphor. A Practical Introduction to the Cognitive Theory of Metaphors). Budapest: Typotex.

Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Langacker, Ronald W. 1993. “Reference-point Constructions.” Cognitive Linguistics 4:1-38.

Panther, Klaus-Uwe. 2011. “Motivation in Language.” In Cognition and Motivation: Forging an Interdisciplinary Perspective, ed. Kreitler Shulamith. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Panther, Klaus-Uwe and Linda Thornburg. 1998. “A Cognitive Approach to Interferencing in Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 30: 755–769.

Panther, Klaus-Uwe, and Linda Thornburg. 1999. “The Potentiality for Actuality Metonymy in English and Hungarian.” In Metonymy in Language and Thought (Human Cognitive Processing 4), ed. Panther, Klaus-Uwe and Günter Radden, 333–357. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Panther, Klaus-Uwe, and Linda Thornburg. 2003. “Metonymies as Natural Inference and

Activation Schemas: The Case of Dependent Clauses as Independent Speech Acts. ” In Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing, ed. Panther, Klaus-Uwe and Linda Thornburg, 127–147. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Panther, Klaus-Uwe and Linda Thornburg. 2006. “Metonymy and the Way we Speak.” In The Metaphors of Sixty: Papers Presented on the Occasion of the 60th Birthday of Zoltán Kövecses, ed. Benczes Réka and Szilvia Csábi, 183–195. Budapest: Eötvös Loránd University Press.

Panther, Klaus-Uwe, and Linda Thornburg. 2007. “Metonymy.” In The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics ed. Geeraerts Dirk and Hubert Cuyckens, 236–264. New York: Oxford University Press.

Panther, Klaus-Uwe, Linda Thornburg, and Antonio Barcelona. 2009. Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar. Human Cognitive Processing, 25. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins

Panther, Klaus-Uwe, and Linda Thornburg. 2017. “Metaphor and Metonymy in Language and Thought: A Cognitive Linguistic Approach.” SYNTHESIS PHILOSOPHICA 64 (2): 271–294

Panther, Klaus-Uwe, and Günter Radden. 1999. “The Potentiality for Actuality Metonymy in English and Hungarian.” In Metonymy in Language and Thought. eds. Panther Klaus-Uwe and Günter Radden, 333-357. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Pléh, Csaba. 2012. A társalgás pszichológiája. (The psychology of conversation.). Budapest: Libri Könyvkiadó.

Tátrai, Szilárd. 2013. “Funkcionális pragmatika és kognitív nyelvészet. (Functional pragmatics and cognitive linguistics.)” Magyar Nyelv 109 (2):197-202.

Radden, Günter, and Klaus-Uwe Panther. 2004. “Introduction: Reflections on Motivation.” In Studies in Linguistic Motivation (Cognitive Linguistics Research 28), ed. Radden Günter and Klaus-Uwe Panther, 1–46. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Tátrai, Szilárd. 2017. “Pragmatika. (Pragmatics.)” In Nyelvtan ed. Tolcsvai Nagy Gábor, 899–1057. Budapest: Osiris Kiadó.

Thornburg, Linda and Klaus-Uwe Panther. 1997. “Speech Act Metonymies.” In Discourse and Perspective in Cognitive Linguistics. ed. Liebert Wolf-Andreas, Redeker Gisela, and Linda R.Waugh, 205–219. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Tomasello, Michael. 2016. Dlaczego współpracujemy. (Why we cooperate). Copernicus Center Press.

Wardhaugh, Roland 2005 (1995). Szociolingvisztika (eredeti címe: An Introducion to Sociolinguistics). Osiris Kiadó, Budapest.

Watts, Richard. 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Watts, Richard and Miriam Locher. 2005. “Politeness Theory and Relational Work.” Journal of Politeness Research. 1 (1): 9–33

Verschueren, Jef. 1999. Understanding Pragmatics. London, New York, Sydney, Auckland:


Veres-Guśpiel, Agnieszka 2013. “Kérések konstruálása – kidolgozottság, indirektség, konvencionáltság hatása a megnyilatkozások udvariasságára” In Társadalmi változások – nyelvi változások. Alkalmazott nyelvészeti kutatások a Kárpát-medencében. A XXII. MANYE Kongresszus előadásai. Szeged, 2012. április 12–14. (A MANYE Kongresszusok előadásai 9.), ed: Tóth Sziergiej, 289-296 Budapest–Szeged: MANYE – Szegedi Egyetemi Kiadó Juhász Gyula Felsőoktatási Kiadó.

Veres-Guśpiel, Agnieszka 2017. A személyközi viszonyok konstruálásának kognitív pragmatikai vizsgálata a magyar és a lengyel nyelvű kérésekben. (Cognitive pragmatic research on constructing interpersonal relationships in Hungarian and Polish requests. Doctoral dissertation, Budapest.;jsessionid=C03BE8DE680ECE2C3BB1FB558ABF9EFA?sequence=1

Data publikacji: 2020-09-04 12:41:27
Data złożenia artykułu: 2020-03-13 10:51:48


Total abstract view - 783
Downloads (from 2020-06-17) - PDF - 0



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2020 Agnieszka Veres-Guspiel

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.