Kecskes’ sociocognitive model (2010, 2014) distinguishes itself from other approaches in Pragmatics in that it takes societal and individual factors alike into account when it comes to various conversational scenarios. While that makes it by default applicable to any kind of communicative frame with any kinds of considerable variables, it has been shown that intercultural communication in particular benefits from his holistic approach, considering the potential cultural discrepancies between interlocutors being entailed.

 

               The present study is going to employ Kecskes’s model in attending to pragmatic idioms in both intra- and intercultural communication. While pragmatic idioms and specific subcategories thereof have been dealt with by a few scholars (e.g. Koller 1977; Harnish 1983; Fraser 1996; Kecskes 2000, 2003, 2007) they are not only culturally salient, but also are they used by individuals in specific scenarios and with specific intentions. Within the broad and so far not comprehensively defined range of pragmatic idioms, the present study will zoom in on one specific type, i.e. response formulae, such as (a) That’s what she said; (b) your mama; (c) It takes one to know one; (d) Not that there is anything wrong with that; and (e) say what?

 

1. Man, where you get that from? – Your mama. [Friday [movie] 1995)

 

1. This is huge. – That’s what she said. (The Office [TV series], Season 5, episode 16)

 

1. But he's a retard. – Yeah well, it takes one to know one! (I am Sam [movie] 2001)

 

1. Now everyone's going to think we're gay! – Not that there's anything wrong with that... (Seinfeld [TV series] 1993, Episode 411)

 

1. We got two honkies out there dressed like Hacedic Diamond merchants – Say what? (The Blues Brothers [movie] 1980)

 

Pragmatically speaking, these formulae have in common that they are tied in with various layers of humor, e.g. sarcasm and irony, which is why they have recently been coined as “isolated punchlines” (Kirner-Ludwig forthcoming). This being said, it shall be argued that this specific type of pragmatic idioms goes beyond what has been defined and established as Kecskes’s formulaic continuum (2003). The present study is thus going to present a comprehensive overview of these isolated response punchlines as occurring in quasi-fictional texts and movie/TV-series scripts since 1980, and what patterns they follow on the discursive level as well as within the scenarios they are used in.

 

 

References:

Fraser, Bruce. 1996. Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics, 6(2): 167-190.

Harnish, Robert 1983. Pragmatic derivations. Synthese 54: 325-373. 

Kecskes, Istvan. 2000. A cognitive-pragmatic approach to situation-bound utterances. Journal of Pragmatics. 32(6): 605-625.

Kecskes, Istvan. 2003. Situation-bound utterances in L1 and L2. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Kecskes, Istvan. 2007. “Formulaic language in English lingua franca”, in Explorations in pragmatics: Linguistic, cognitive and intercultural aspects, eds. I. Kecskes & Horn, L.R. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 191–219.

Kecskes, Istvan. 2010. The paradox of communication: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics and Society 1(1): 50–73.

Kecskes, Istvan. 2014. Intercultural Pragmatics.  New York: Oxford University Press.

Kirner-Ludwig, Monika (forthcoming). That’s what she said: Trying to make it fit...an established category. Journal of Pragmatics. 

Koller, Werner. 1977. Redensarten: linguistische Aspekte, Vorkommensanalysen, Sprachspiel. Tübin-gen: Niemeyer.