國立中山大學外國語文學系 碩士論文 救恩的隱喻與語用行為: 社會與認知兼容的語用學觀點

Transcription

1 外 國 語 文 學 系 國 立 中 山 大 學 碩 士 論 文 國立中山大學外國語文學系 碩士論文 Department of Foreign Languages and Literature 論 文 中 文 題 目 救 恩 的 隱 喻 與 語 用 行 為 研 究 生 蔡 以 琳 102 學 年 度 National Sun Yat-sen University Master Thesis 救恩的隱喻與語用行為: 社會與認知兼容的語用學觀點 Metaphors of salvation and the pragmatic act of saving: Toward a social-cognitive analysis 研究生 蔡以琳 I-Lin Tsai 指導教授 曾銘裕 博士 Dr. Ming-Yu Tseng 中華民國102年1月 January 2013

2 國立中山大學外國語文學系 碩士論文 Department of Foreign Languages and Literature National Sun Yat-sen University Master Thesis 救恩的隱喻與語用行為: 社會與認知兼容的語用學觀點 Metaphors of salvation and the pragmatic act of saving: Toward a social-cognitive analysis 研究生 蔡以琳 I-Lin Tsai 指導教授 曾銘裕 博士 Dr. Ming-Yu Tseng 中華民國 102 年 1 月 January 2013

3 i

4 Acknowledgment Thanks to God for bring me to NSYSU as a significant journey of my life. Here comes to the end of this part of my journey. At this moment, I would like to express my gratitude to those who play a key role as a helper, comforter, rouser, instructor, advisor and fosterer of this hard-earned achievement. The completion of my thesis should be attributed to many people. First and foremost, I would like to thank my advisor, Professor Tseng Ming-Yu. Professor Tseng always explains in everyday language results of a profound study. His courses arouse my strong interests in pragmatics, conceptual metaphor and discourse analysis. In my thesis writing stage, Professor Tseng patiently instructs me and attentively helps me to structure a logical picture of my thesis. He constantly encourages me to hope for the best when I was worried about my progress. For me, Professor Tseng is like a reassurance that every time when I got lost, he guided me forward to the positive direction and gave me the suggestions of how I should do next. Without his guidance, patience, inspiration and encouragement, I cannot fulfill this tough mission. Therefore, I would like to attribute this success to him. My sincere appreciation goes to the committee members, Prof. Shyu Shu-Ing and Prof. Shie Jian-Shiung. Their insightful comments and helpful suggestions direct my thesis to be able to contribute more. Besides, I am so grateful to Professor Shyu who takes care of me like a mother when I first come to NSYSU. It is she who told me that I am good and should be confident of myself when I was overwhelmed by the intensive schoolwork. She has shared with me not only her knowledge of syntax but also her life experiences and the biblical teachings. I am grateful to God that He makes us meet here. In addition, I would also like to express my thanks to Prof. Yang ii

5 Yu-Feng, Prof. Huang Heng-Tsung and Prof. Kuo Chin-Man. I ve learned a lot from their courses, not only concerning academic knowledge, but also the attitude of doing research and dealing with the matters of life. I also thankful to all my dear friends and classmates: Hsueh-i Wang, Hsuen-en Cheng, Bi-sin Wang, Yi-sheng Wang, Ai-yun Wang, Sammi Lin, Elaine Chou, Hsiang-lin Huang, Mei Hsieh, Nancy Wang, Karen Shih, Novia Wang, Monica Wu, to name but a few. Their company and sharing hearten me to face the difficulties and challenges. It is really great to have them. My deepest thank goes to my beloved family: my parents, my older brother Eddie, and my sister in law Ching. Their support, comfort, company and meticulous care are the major strength for me to complete the study in graduate school. If it were not for their back-ups, I would not come this far. Last but not least, my most gratitude will goes to my dearest God. God s leading of my life and His perfect plan on me makes my life meaningful. Without Him, I am nothing. Besides, I would also like to thank God for sending Jeremy Lin as one of His representatives. I am so encouraged and being touched by his movie and his sharing of life testimonies. Finally, I would say, thanks God, and thanks all the people who participant in this significant journey. Now, I can be tougher and more courageous forward. For you, O God, tested us; you refined us like silver. You brought us into prison and laid burdens on our backs. You let men ride over our heads; we went through fire and water, but you brought us to a place of abundance. (Psalms 66:10-12) iii

6 摘要 透過認知語言學與 Mey (2001)所提出的語用行為理論 本論文旨在探討聖經 中救恩的隱喻 擴展一個社會與認知兼容的研究視野 學者已著墨隱喻在言談中 獨特的用意(例如: Sopory, 1999; Charteris-Black, 2005; Inya, 2012) 然而 在聖經 經文與基督徒見證體裁中 隱喻如何架構一個語用位(pragmeme) 造成轉換作用 (transformative effect) 進而執行語用行為 卻未受到相對的重視 在本篇論文中 筆者認為 聖經中的救恩隱喻展現了救(即救贖)的語用行為(the pragmatic act of saving) 而本研究著重分析聖經中四種主要的救恩隱喻與審視基督徒網站的得救 見證分享 展示傳達者與接收者之間的語用行為表現 透過 Lakoff 與 Johnson (1980)所提出的概念隱喻理論(conceptual metaphor) Fauconnier 和 Turner (2002) 的概念合成理論(blending theory)以及 Mey (2001)的語用行為模型做為主要的研 究方法 本文闡述聖經文本所例示的救恩面貌 分析結果顯示 造就救恩的語用 行為 隱喻功不可沒 其所形構的動態場景 乃了解救恩意義的關鍵 此外 救 恩的語用素(pract) 即廣義的語用行為 如 誡慰(warning-comforting) 制定條 件(conditioning) 證明(certifying) 生效(validating)與展現愛(showing love)等等 亦透過隱喻闡釋 各個救恩的隱喻 如 奴隸買賣 審判 贖罪祭 和收養 則 用來建構一個通向救恩的新曙光 引領通往盼望的天堂之路 另外 Sperber 和 Wilson (1996)的關聯理論(relevance theory)在本研究中輔助說明語境效果 (contextual effect)和傳達者與接收者之間的合作言行表現 接收者所表現的語用 行為 信仰或相信 主要仰賴於語境中的可用性(affordance)與救恩訊息對於接 收者的關聯性(relevance) 關鍵詞: 語用行為 語用位 概念隱喻 轉喻 概念合成 關聯性 救恩 iv

7 Abstract The present study aims to extend a social-cognitive approach to metaphor by drawing on insights from both cognitive linguistics and Mey s (2001) pragmatic act theory. Many scholars agree with the distinctive force of metaphor in discourse (e.g. Sopory, 1999; Charteris-Black, 2005; Inya, 2012). However, the significant performance of metaphor in framing a pragmeme and its transformative effect in the genres of Bible verses and Christians testimonies have been overlooked. In this thesis, I argue that the metaphors of salvation in the Bible perform the pragmatic act of saving (i.e. salvation). The present study focuses on four major types of salvation metaphors used in both the verses in the Bible and some Christians testimonies from the website luke54.org in order to demonstrate how such metaphors are produced and perceived. By employing Lakoff and Johnson s (1980) conceptual metaphor theory, Fauconnier & Turner s (2002) blending theory and Mey s (2001) pragmatic act model as the methods, this study expounds the feature of the biblical salvation in textual exemplification. The analysis reveals that as one of the predominant elements in the performance of saving, metaphor creates an active scene which allows people to see the meaning of salvation. In addition, the practs (e.g. generalized acts such as warning-comforting, conditioning, certifying, validating and showing love) are construed by the metaphors involved. The various metaphors (e.g. SLAVE TRADE, JUDGMENT, ATONEMENT, and ADOPTION) of the saving act are used to construct a new reality towards salvation and to fulfill the experiential feasibility of the heavenly hope. Besides, Sperber and Wilson s (1996) relevance theory helps to illustrate the contextual effects and the co-opting between addressors and addressees. It shows that the pragmatic act of faithing (i.e. believing) which is performed by v

8 addressees relies mostly on the affordance of the context and the relevance of the saving messages. Keywords: pragmatic act, pragmeme, conceptual metaphor, metonymy, blending, relevance, salvation vi

9 Table of Contents 論文審定書. i Acknowledgements ii 中文摘要...iv Abstract v List of Figure x List of Tables... xi Chapter 1 Introduction Background Research purpose and motivation Research questions Overview Chapter 2 Literature review Speech acts and situated speech acts Speech acts and indirect speech acts Speech acts fallacy and situated speech acts Pragmatic acts and pragmemes The pragmatic act theory The norms of interpretation and the explanatory movement The interplay between contextual elements and pragmemes Why pragmatic act?...38 vii

10 Chapter 3 Theoretical Framework Conceptual metaphor theory Metaphorical mapping The cognitive function based classification Metonymy Blending Relevance theory The modified model for a socio-cognitive analysis Chapter 4 Research Data and Data Analyses Research data Data collection and rationale Data analysis methods Data analyses The metaphor of salvation The source domain of salvation metaphor: slave trade The coherence among source domains The pragmatic act of salvation: to save Ontological metaphors and the affordance of pragmatic act of saving The hiding voice: contextual operation and Blending Addressor and addressee: to save and to be saved The interaction of metaphor and pragmatic act The overview: the harmonious cooperation viii

11 Chapter 5 Conclusion Conclusion Limitations and implications References. 167 Appendix ix

12 List of Figures Fig. 1 The scheme of pragmatic act theory (Mey, 2001, p. 222). 27 Fig. 2 Blended spaces (Fauconnier & Turner, 2002, p.45)..67 Fig. 3 The basic diagram (Fauconnier & Turner, 2002, p. 46) 69 Fig. 4 Aspects of verbal communication (Sperber & Wilson, 1995, p. 232)...77 Fig. 5 Modified model of pragmatic acts for a socio-cognitive analysis. 83 Fig. 6. The blend of SALVATION AS SLAVE TRADE..129 Fig. 7 Toward an analysis of the pragmatic act of saving x

13 List of Tables Table 1 The metaphorical mappings of salvation metaphor..106 Table 2 The (addressors ) performance of the pragmatic act of saving. 132 Table 3 The contextual operations of the pragmatic act of saving. 158 xi

14 Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Background The flourishing development of human linguistic science allows people to better explain human thinking process. On the one hand, cognitive approaches to language and interpretation focus on the path of inferential process (e.g. Sperber and Wilson, 1998, 2002; Fauconnier & Turner, 2002) which illustrates how people employ the cognitive mechanisms (e.g. metaphor, relevance, blending) to communicate. On the other hand, the social and pragmatic approaches to language (e.g. Labov, 2001; Mey, 2001; Capone, 2005; Kecskes, 2010a, b) pay more attention to the variation of language which captures cultural and contextual factors in constructing distinctive features of social context. In particular, the broad discussions towards conceptual metaphor (e.g. Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, 2003; Goatly, 1997; Fauconnier & Turner, 2002; Oakley, 2007; Sperber & Wilson, 2008; Kövecses, 2010) have made it one of the important issues in cognitive linguistics. As indicated by many scholars, rather than only for rhetorical means, metaphor is widely used in our everyday communication. Lakoff & Johnson s work (1980) introduces a two-domain model for conceptual mappings. They suggest that metaphor is a concept in human thought process which involves two-domain 1

15 mappings: source domain and target domain. That is, by adopting a more concrete domain as the source, people can comprehend a more abstract concept in the target domain. For example, people may employ their experiences of a journey to comprehend the abstract concept of life (e.g. Life's a journey not a destination. And I just can't tell just what tomorrow brings. (A Little South of Sanity); Life is a journey, travel it well (United Airlines)). In fact, metaphor functions as a way for comprehension. As stated by Kövecses (2010), metaphor is grounded in our experiences, either perceptual, biological, or cultural (p.47). Our perceptions and cultural norms can be reflected by the metaphors we use. In addition, not only those structural metaphors, but also our perception towards physical objects and orientational concepts provide us the language resources to express our viewpoints and values towards things. One of the typical examples for the orientational metaphor is HAPPY IS UP; SAD IS DOWN (e.g. I m feeling up; I am feeling low) (cf. Lakoff & John, 1980, p.15). The other example for the ontological metaphor is seeing heart as a substantial container (e.g. you are always in my heart). In other words, metaphor also governs people s actions. For our conceptual system may reflect our perceptions by the language we use and by the action we perform, metaphor can be seen as a mirror which helps people to illustrate stories behind language users. Besides, Blending theory, which is proposed 2

16 by Fauconnier & Turner (2002) provides an extending explanation of the conceptual mappings across and between at least four mental spaces. In short, conceptual metaphors contribute to portray people s language use in cognitive terms and as a profound mechanism in human language development. Notably, Austin s (1962) speech act theory and Searle s (1969) development of it reveals the powerful force of human language. In How to Do Things with Words, Austin (1962) brings a practical value of human utterances, that is, its performative dimension. He claims that we do not use language for merely making a statement but we speak to do actions. He divides speech acts into three layers locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary in order to better describe the different degrees of language force. In his demonstrations, illocutionary acts were classified into five basic types: verdictives, exercitives, commissives, behabitives, and expositives (p. 151). Afterwards, Searle (1969) proposes an alternative classification of illocutionary acts (i.e. assertives, directives, commissives, expressives and declarations) so as to amend the shortcomings of Austin s classification (cf. Chapter 2). Their works have stepped into a new dimension which no longer only focuses on the truth-condition of one particular statement as traditional semantics has done. Furthermore, in Mey s (2001) proposition, the contextual-determined pragmatic act theory serves to resolve the problematic identification and the limited 3

17 classification of speech act theory. His social-oriented theory posits that the action in a speech can only be understood when it is situated, and the situation is always set up through such action. Therefore, the more practical issue for the verbal acts is not to define what a single verb or a particular utterance can denote, but to see how the given context can afford. In Mey s (2001) exposition, the characteristics of one pragmatic act can be illustrated by two parts, one is the activity part (i.e. interactants), and the other is the textual part (i.e. context). The activity part goes for the face-to-face communication (e.g. conversational acts, physical acts (body moves) ) while the textual part is regarding contextual operations (e.g. inference, reference, voice ) (p. 222). Altogether, Mey (2001) concludes that the dilemma of illocutionary and perlocutionary force1 can be resolved by only considering the force of the pragmeme (p. 223). Both the cognitive and the social and pragmatic perspectives depict human language in various depths, breadths and features. Nevertheless, the interplay between cognitive and pragmatic approaches receives little attention even though metaphor is being listed as one of the contextual elements in Mey s (2001) scheme of pragmatic act (cf. Chapter 2). Therefore, the present study employs the two perspectives which respectively occupy the significant positions of linguistic science as one way to 1 To distinguish the speaker s intention and the actual effect of an utterance may confuse the property of the act. 2 See Cruse s (2000) meaning in language, p. 221 (as cited in Lundberg, 2002, p. 18). 4

18 examine how cognitive processes construe the force of pragmatic acts. The present study deals with how salvation in the Bible is metaphorized and what acts are performed by such metaphors. The social-cognitive analyses are adopted to further clarify the meaning making process of the contextual elements and to unravel the powerful force which is embedded in the conceptual construction of the metaphorical frames. Since human thinking process is invisible, the only clue to seek is people s language and action. Even though conceptual metaphor cannot represent the complete picture of cognitive construction, it is a hint which can help to delineate the contour of cognitive process when people use it as a way to explain a concept. Moreover, in the present study, metaphor will not only be treated as an explaining mechanism, but it is also considered as one of the chief elements in the performance of the pragmatic act of salvation (i.e. saving). Additionally, the present study will examine other contextual elements (e.g. relevance, voice, reference, metapragmatic joker) in order to elucidate the pragmatic act of saving. 1.2 Research purpose and motivation Since Mey s (2001) proposal of pragmatic act theory, some scholars have responded to it, generating some extended discussions. Capone (2005) firstly addresses the notion of the pragmeme which is the generalized pragmatic act. He 5

19 clarifies the process of recognizing pragmemes by demonstrating actual references of social context. He explains that the effect of pragmemes is working when certain rules (i.e. language rule, situation rule) are satisfied. Capone (2005) also extended the analysis of pragmeme by examining different types of discourses. His demonstration represents the important consideration of the contextual factor; the results of his analyses show that different discourses evoke different interpretations of an utterance. Further, from a social-cognitive perspective, Kecskes (2010b) provides the situation-bound utterances (SBUs) for arguing the explanatory movement. Unlike Mey s (2001, 2006b) proposition, he considers both directions (i.e. outside-in and inside-out) as a more comprehensive approach. Even though Kecskes (2010b) agrees with the contextual force of meaning construction, he points out that Mey has put too much emphasis on the context while the utterance itself has been ignored. In contrast, Wong (2010) proposes that the best comprehensible way to analyze pragmemes is from the cultural perspective. He examines the utterances by focusing on the culturally constructed norm and concludes that cultural relevance is the essence of language learning. Also, scholars portraits towards particular pragmeme enrich the discussion of pragmatic act. Allan (2010) and Mey (2010) coincidently recognize referring as a pragmatic act. On the one hand, Mey (2010) suggests that the particular choices of expression of an utterance in a situation are recognized as an act 6

20 of referring. On the other hand, Allan (2010) provides a five-step way for recognizing the pragmatic act of referring. In Tseng s (2010b) detailed elaboration, in the scam discourse, fishing for personal details is identified as a pragmatic act. He informs that the choices of language which is like a performative chain is for achieving a particular intention of the addressors. He further associates the metaphorical demonstration of fishing as a comprehensive means to illustrate the link between choice and performance (cf. Chapter 2). In fact, many scholars have noted the tight connection between cognitive processes and pragmatic inferences. As Wilson and Sperber (2004) state, an utterance is considered relevant only when it goes through a cognitive process which is available for the addressee to make a connection with his/her background knowledge. Besides, Panther and Thornburg (1997) adopt metonymies as the materials to analyze the cognitive inference of speech acts. They give several examples (e.g. part-whole, cause-effect, ability-action, reason-action) of the metonymies so as to account for the inferential locus of the indirect speech acts. Likewise, Tseng (2010b) identifies SCAMMING IS FISHING as a metaphor for it can help to explain the possible reason for those chosen utterances that perform the act of fishing. Furthermore, Bara (2010) points out that communication is a mental process thereby an actor addresses the utterance to his/her partner for an intended response. He suggests a five-step process 7

21 (i.e. expression act, speaker meaning, communicative effect, reaction and response) for generalizing a common case of communication. However, these discussions tend to put their foci on one side (i.e. cognitive process or pragmatic inference), and some of those even do not take social context into account. The interrelation between pragmatic act and the cognitive approaches (e.g. metaphor, metonymy, relevance) (cf. Mey, 2001) seems to be overlooked as merely part of the contextual elements in illustrating particular pragmemes. Therefore, the primary purpose of the present study is to fill this gap. That is, to clarify the link between cognition and pragmatic performance. Markedly, there are numerous biblical studies concerning the metaphors of salvation. Colijn (2010) adopts the term image to replace the figurative languages (e.g. metaphors, similes, and analogies) so as to resolve the insinuation of the violation of truthfulness (cf. Grice, 1989). However, she also claims that metaphors can express truth more effectively than non-metaphorical language, especially when the subject involves realities that cannot be fully captured in ordinary speech (p. 16). She emphasizes the necessities and functions of those images which carry out the significant meanings of salvation. Besides, as indicated by several scholars, the most commonly discussed metaphors of salvation are redemption, reconciliation, adoption and justification (e.g., Finlan, 2004; Scott, 2008; Roennfeldt, 2008). In particular, 8

22 some of the scholars pay special attention to one of the distinct metaphors of salvation (e.g. Finlan, 2004; Burke, 2008; Hamilton, 2010). In Finlan s (2004) examination, knowing the differences between sacrifice and scapegoat can help to connect all of Paul s salvation metaphors in a consistent scheme. In contrast, Burker (2008) argues that, [a]doption looks at soteriology from a different perspective, the subjective, the experiential or relational, and what happens to the believer as a result of God s saving intervention (p. 263, emphasis original). Hamilton (2010) on the other hand considers God s judgment as the theme of biblical theology as it reveals God s ultimate purpose of showing His glory in salvation (p. 555). Roennfeldt (2008) explained that in different period of time, or different culture, people may accept different interpretations of salvation. For instance, the ransom of slavery was firstly adopted in early church in Roman Empire period. After that, in the eleventh century, the atonement saying was the most accepted when the feudal system was prevailing in that period. In the sixteenth century, it turned to be penalty and substitution while in the last century, the Christians turned their faith to God s grace. In brief, no matter which of the interpretations of salvation is more relevant in another period, according to Roennefeldt (2008), the purpose of salvation is to awaken people s appreciation and love towards God. Nevertheless, the present study does not take theology as the primary concern. 9

23 Instead, it puts more effort in expounding the link between meaning construction and verbal act execution. The footing of the present study is that once it identifies the biblical salvation as a pragmatic act, the social-cognitive aspect orients the foci toward the features and the performance of the pragmatic act rather than its theological implications. Though it might be somewhat deviating to analyze the biblical salvation without considering theological theories, the biblical salvation is nevertheless the example, not the subject, of the present study. Thus, this study does not aim to make any claims regarding new theological annotations to Bible studies. In the same way, the present study does not serve as a comprehensive demonstration in revealing the interactions between cognitive and pragmatic perspectives. Rather, by analyzing the two approaches in the social context, the present study aims to enrich the content of the intersection and to build up a bridge between the two aspects. Furthermore, the present study adopts two different genres (i.e. Bible verses and testimonies) in order to elucidate the dual aspects (i.e. addressors and addressees) that have been ignored by most of the scholars. Last, the small scale examination of the present study hopes to extend the scope of the social-cognitive discussions. 1.3 Research questions Although the reciprocal link between cognitive process and pragmatic inference 10

24 has attracted much attention (e.g. Wilson and Sperber, 2002; Panther and Thornburg, 2003; Bara, 2010), scholars tend to put cognitive process when explaining the pragmatic inference. It is so right to examine human language firstly through their cognitive construction and their mental states. Yet, the evidence from language, say, the social context and discourse should be more representable for those factors. That is, the illustration of cognitive construction and mental states should be analyzed in the relevant context. In the present study, the social-cognitive analyses adopt both the cognitive perspectives (e.g. metaphor, metonymy, relevance, blending) and the pragmatic perspectives (e.g. tense, reference, inference, metapragmatic joker) as the two-way examination. The relevant cases which consist of cognitive and pragmatic approaches, i.e., the pragmatic act of salvation from Bible and people s testimonies from the Christian website will be the major genres of the present study. The research questions are as follows: (1) What is the relation between cognitive perspectives (e.g. metaphors, metonymies, relevance, blending) and pragmatic force? What is the role of those cognitive approaches in performing the pragmatic act of saving (i.e. salvation)? (2) What are the major functions of the conceptual metaphors of salvation? What are the advantages or main purpose to use metaphors in performing the pragmatic act of saving (i.e. salvation)? 11

25 (3) How does the cooperation between addressor and addressee achieve the pragmatic force which Mey (2001) has proposed? How may the transformation of pragmatic force be characterized? (4) What is the connection among the pragmemes of salvation and how do those activate the positive cognitive effects? (i.e. relevance) (cf. Sperber and Wilson, 1995)? The four questions show the core value of the present study. These questions all examine the fundamental issue regarding role of cognitive mechanisms in the pragmatic act performance. However, there are still some differences among the foci. Question (1) inquires about the role of cognitive approaches in performing the pragmatic act of salvation. That is, I assume that the cognitive approaches are the significant elements which create the affordance of the pragmatic act and transmit the pragmatic force. The distinctive case of the present study is the biblical salvation which includes so many illustrations towards the invisible things (e.g. God, heaven, eternal life, human soul, etc.). Therefore, Question (2) more specifically explores the major functions of the conceptual metaphors of salvation. Besides, for one of the important purposes of the present study is to extend the scale of the discussion of pragmatic act, Question (3) looks into the cooperation between addressor and addressee in the social communication. In terms of the two different genres (i.e. the 12

26 verses from Bible and the testimonies from the Christian website), the present study investigates the dual angles of addressor and addressee. Although the two sources come from different contexts, they are both identified as discourse in which the pragmatic act of saving. In other words, those acts (i.e. the addressor s act of saving and the addressees expected responses to salvation) can still be viewed as a coherent act performing context. As a matter of fact, it is quite tough to expound a pragmatic act by scrutinizing the actual context of the acts that are performed intertextually by addressors and addressees. For instance, to borrow Tseng s (2010b) case, recognizing the pragmatic act of fishing by both the fisherman (i.e. the one who commits a fraud) and the fish (i.e. the victim) may lead the issue into a complicated dilemma. The reason is simple, firstly, the data cannot be obtained easily (since it involves a criminal act). Secondly, if there was no victim, the pragmatic force of scamming would not be considered significant or even existing. Consequently, by virtue of the cognitive theories (e.g. conceptual metaphor, Blending, relevance), Question (3) intends to supplement the deficient angle of the addressees in the social context rather than to draw a flawless picture of the pragmatic act theory. Finally, Question (4) inspects the other critical focus of the present study. The connection among the pragmemes and the relevance of the performance are the two characteristics which should be concluded in the present study. In short, the social-cognitive perspective of 13

27 the present study, on the one hand aims to extend the scale of the pragmatic act discussions, and on the other hand to reveal the mystical functions of cognitive mechanisms when utterances perform the pragmatic act in societal contexts. 1.4 Overview In this chapter, I have briefly introduced the background of conceptual metaphor and pragmatic act which are the two major foci of the present study. Also, the purpose and the main questions have been briefly previewed in Chapter 1. Chapter 2 reviews the discussions towards speech act and pragmatic act. Some of the approaches to pragmemes will be included in Chapter 2 in order to summarize the recent developments of the theory. Chapter 3 employs conceptual metaphor, Blending and relevance theory as the methods of this study. Additionally, the scheme of Mey s (2010) pragmatic act theory will be adopted and slightly modified, serving as the main theoretical framework of the present study. By analyzing the verses of metaphorical salvation from the New International Version (NIV) Bible, Chapter 4 provides answers to the research questions. Moreover, some of the testimonies from a Christian website will be analyzed in order to supplement the discussion based on the viewpoint of the uptake (i.e. addressees) (Mey, 2001, p.211). The characteristic of the pragmatic act of saving will also be elucidated in Chapter 4. Last, Chapter 5 14

28 summarizes the main findings of the present study and brings about some suggestions for future study. 15

29 Chapter 2 Literature review The present study aims to extend the discussion between cognitive linguistics and pragmatic act studies on the basis of Mey s (2001) pragmatic act theory. Section 2.1 firstly reviews the studies of speech act as the phylogeny of pragmatic act. Secondly, Section 2.2 introduces Mey s (2001) pragmatic act theory. The fallacy of speech act and the reason why people need pragmatic act as a better explaining mechanism will be one of the main issues in this Chapter. Thirdly, scholars remarks (e.g. Capone, 2005; Kecskes, 2010b; Allan, 2010; Tseng, 2010b, Inya, 2012) of the explanatory movement, identification and characterization of pragmatic acts will be further reviewed. Those studies regarding pragmatic act not only show the achievements, but also reveal the deficiency in the current discussions. That is, the connection of cognitive processing and pragmatic inferences has been overlooked. Finally, since the present study employs pragmatic act theory as the superior framework in order to construe the metaphorical performance of the pragmatic act of saving, Section 2.2 again points out the main issues which I intend to specify. 2.1 Speech acts and situated speech acts As one of the most influential developments in linguistic science, speech act 16

30 theory reveals the powerful force of human language. In How to Do Things with Words, Austin (1962) opened up a new field of vision by viewing utterance meaning in a functional pragmatic way. After Searle s (1969) revision, speech act theory has become influential. However, while Austin and Searle demonstrated a possible formula for speech acts theory, Mey (2001) has turned his wide-angle camera lens to societal issues and proposed that all speech acts have to be situated. Austin s (1962) and Searle s (1969) traditional speech act theory will be reviewed in Section Section further deals with the shortcomings of speech act theory and provides Mey s (2001) theory of situated speech act as the way to further elucidate linguistic acting Speech acts and indirect speech acts As defined by Austin (1962) and Searle (1969), speech acts are the actions that are performed by verbal expressions. The philosophers emphasized the power of utterances and revealed the insight that we do not use language for merely making a statement, but speak to do actions (e.g. Austin, 1962; Searle, 1969). Unlike traditional semantics, Austin (1962) did not concern himself with the truth-condition of one particular sentence or statement. The new element which Austin (1962) brought into is the practical value of human language: the performative feature. Firstly, Austin 17

31 (1962) divided speech acts into three layers: locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary. Each of the three facets for a different level of speech act. The locutionary act is the physical act of speaking. The illocutionary act is the action performed in making utterance. The perlocutionary act is the actual effect of the utterance (Austin, 1962). Among the three categories, illocutionary acts have gained most attention. In Austin s (1962) observation, there were some distinct verbs being used in specific institutions (e.g. to baptize, to sentence, to invest, and to dub). In Austin s (1962) view, such verbs carried the performing feature, and therefore he called such words performatives. Austin (1962) divided illocutionary acts into five basic types: verdictives, exercitives, commissives, behabitives, and expositives (p. 151). However, Searle (1969) pointed out several weaknesses of this attempted classification. He indicated that what Austin (1962) dealt with are not actually illocutionary acts, but English illocutionary verbs (Searle 1979, p. 9). Also, some of the verbs that Austin listed are not performative (e.g. sympathize, regard as, mean to, intend, etc.) (Searle 1979, p. 9). Moreover, Searle (1979) criticized that the criterion for Austin s classification is not even consistent (p.10). It not only causes the overlapping of some illocutionary verbs (e.g. describe is listed as both a verdictive and an expositive), but also the unsatisfactory definition for single verbs within one category (Searle, 1979, p. 11). 18

32 Consequently, Searle (1979) addressed several conditions: e.g., illocutionary point, and its corollaries, direction of fit, and expressed sincerity conditions as the more applicable criteria for classifying speech acts (p. 12). By adopting those criteria as the basis, Searle (1979) proposed an alternative classification of the illocutionary acts: assertives, directives, commissives, expressives and declarations. Those criteria make Searle s classification more flexible and precise than Austin s. In the first place, the illocutionary point specifies the purpose of doing an action (e.g. to commit to doing something, to attempt to get someone to do something, and to express an attitude or emotion) which is as well an element of illocutionary force. Therefore, several verbs can be recognized as having a similar purpose (e.g. request, require, order and command all have the same purpose which is attempting to get someone to do something). Second, the direction of fit describes the distinct directions between word-to-world and world-to-word fit which makes the classification more precisely. For instance, assertives is a word-to-world fit (i.e. the word is uttered to fit the world) while commissives is world-to-world fit (i.e. the world has changed to fit the word). Thirdly, expressed sincerity conditions stands for the speaker s psychological states (e.g. intent, belief, want) when producing the utterance which further resolves the overlapping of some illocutionary verbs. In short, the basic differences between Austin s (1962) and Searle s (1979) classification is that the latter is concerned with 19

33 illocutionary acts rather than illocutionary verbs. Moreover, Searle (1979) discovered that there were many acts, or rather, most acts, are performed indirectly (i.e. the speaker s meaning is more than the literal meaning of an utterance). For instance, when a girl says: The dress is so beautiful to his boyfriend when they pass by a shop, it is very possible that her meaning is Buy me the dress rather than just appreciating the design of the dress. Hence, this issue had also been considered in Searle s theory of speech acts. He proposed the illocutionary force indicating device : preparatory conditions, propositional content conditions, sincerity conditions, and essential conditions as the ways to recognize the illocutionary force (Searle 1979, p. 31). Still, as with Austin (1962), Searle (1979) suggested that these conditions may be useful for analysis rather than principles to be followed. By contrast, Mey considers context as the most important factor. He draws on Levinson s (1979) idea: All speech is situated speech; a speech act is never just an act of speech, but should be considered in the total situation of activity of which it is a part (Mey, 2001, p. 94). Next, Section will indicate the fallacy of speech acts theory, and Mey s (2001) revised vision which deals with situated speech acts will be offered as a preferable substitution. 20

34 2.1.2 Speech acts fallacy and situated speech acts During the past four decades, speech act theory has been challenged and revised (e.g. Levinson, 1979; Verschueren, 1979; Leech, 1983). One of the greatest changes is made by Jacob L. Mey (2001) in his book Pragmatics: an Introduction. As a pragmaticist, Mey (2001) emphasizes the significance of context, the social aspect. He says that [T]his is not a matter of semantics, or of semantics alone it is society that determines the validity of (or what counts as ) a particular speech acts. (p. 100). He considers condition and situation as the predominant characters which give the affordance to an utterance. Mey (2001) stresses that speech act theory has ignored the practical issue of society. He also suggests that what we can do is to seize the actions done in the given situation and to infer the underlying affordance of such a context; but not to grasp the words or utterances and try to extend it as the necessary units in a particular condition (Mey, 2006b). In Mey s (2001) word, speech act theory has put the cart before the horse (p. 116). The fallacy of traditional speech act theory is that the philosophers tried to see the action through a particular utterance which is constructed with an ideal speaker and hearer who do not even exist in the real context (Mey, 2006b). He attributes it to the problematic intentional feature of the speech act classification, the insufficient conditions that are only suitable for single case, and the restriction of the single-language application to the neglect of social context (Mey, 21

35 2001, p ). Even though in Austin s (1962) and Searle s (1967) demonstrations, the context issue has once been mentioned, their main focus is on the speaker s utterance, speaker s intention, and the form of a particular utterance (Mey, 2001). What has been overlooked is the more practical issue, the actual effect of the utterance and the affordance which is given by the context. Therefore, Mey (2001) suggests a shift of focus from the speaker-oriented view to the context-oriented consideration. Mey s (2001) pragmatic act theory will be expounded next. 2.2 Pragmatic acts and pragmemes Mey informs that the nature of explanatory movement of human language is from outside in rather than inside out (i.e. from context to meaning, rather than from words to meaning) (2001, 2006b). He points out that meaning and interpretation are not identified by the speaker s intention but are established and afforded by the situation and by the context being recognized. In other words, the action in a speech can only be understood when it is situated, and the situation is always set up through such an action. Yet, it s the setting up of the context that brings up the effect (Mey, 2001, p. 211). Unlike the speech act theory, Mey (2001) firstly exemplifies some actual utterances (e.g. advertisement, speech, scandal, illegal affair) in order to show the practical and real features of language use. 22

36 Section demonstrates Mey s (2001) proposition of pragmatic act by first viewing one advertisement which he has used in his analyses. The results show that in the common practice, language is represented indirectly, which suggests that people are used to speaking implicitly. Besides, there is no perfect correlation between a speech act verb and a corresponding speech act. Mey s (2001) model of pragmatic act provides a practical way to understand verbal acts, and several scholars echo his work. Section reviews several explorations of pragmatic act (e.g. Capone, 2005; Kecskes, 2010b; Allan, 2010; Tseng, 2010b) which illustrate a closer link between acts and context. Section shows the relation between pragmemes and the contextual elements (e.g. reference, voice, inference) and acts (e.g. speech acts, psychological acts, indirect speech acts). Section further lists the advantages of pragmatic act theory as well as the reason for the present study to apply it as a better examining device The pragmatic act theory Firstly, let s see the following example which is proposed by Mey (2001, p.207): I brought some sushi home and cooked it; it wasn t bad. The sentence above is an advertisement of a cocktail lounge bar, and the purpose is to invite its readers. As can be seen from the context, there is no performative verb like 23

37 inviting. Instead, it reads like a joke with a silly situation after enjoying the drinking. By showing this semantic clash (i.e. no context can resolve the clash in meaning between elements ), 2 Mey (2001) verifies the working of pragmatics. That is, syntactically and semantically, we cannot sense the meaning of this sentence, but pragmatically, we do. Take another typical example: the speech of irony, the so called situational phenomenon (p. 6). In the same way, there is no canonical word or verb can be identified as ironical usage, but it relies on the situation (Mey, 2006b, p.6). For example, people may not explicitly say that I satirize you when they are speaking ironically, or like an utterance You are so beautiful will definitely not be semantically perceived as an irony. Mey (2001) explains that [e]ven though speech is a constitutive component of human individual and social life (as is language in general), it is still part of a larger context, of an even more encompassing activity. (p. 95). That is to say, interlocutors are conditioned in the social context and they are at the same time set by the situation. In other words, when we look into an utterance, we should start from the environmental surrounding rather than from the uttered words. Because the meaning of an utterance is not self-evident, the context carries the fundamental role as the only clue for interpretation. In Mey s (2001) demonstrations, an implied message invokes a better effect than an explicit expression. As he quotes 2 See Cruse s (2000) meaning in language, p. 221 (as cited in Lundberg, 2002, p. 18). 24

38 the word from Stephen Tyler (1967), it is not what is said, but the unsaid that is the major mechanism of persuading (Mey, p. 210). Besides, in order to recognize actions in the utterance, people should rely on not only the setting up of the context, but also the responses from the uptake (i.e. the hearer) (Mey, 2001, p.211). To put it in another way, the co-option of addressor and addressee is the essence of communication (Mey 2001, p. 210). Concerning the dilemma of indirect speech acts, Mey (2006b) clears it up with the characteristic of situation. A situation is established by a certain condition which is socially and culturally constructed. What can be considered as an appropriate utterance is by the identification of the situation. Therefore, the puzzle between literal and non-literal meaning perceived can be straightened out by the affordance 3 of the situation. Pragmatic act, as Mey (2001) emphasized, should neither be a sub-category of indirect speech acts nor need to contain any specific speech act verbs in it. The proper way to see such human application should not be like the tunnel vision, but as the view of bird's eyes. As can be seen from the following quote, speech act theory is just like the sketching of language which narrows down the whole picture of human activities: 3 The term is firstly introduced by the psychologist, Gibson (1979) in his article The theory of affordances which denotes all the environmental offerings (either positive or negative) to animals (p. 127). Here in Mey s (2001) borrowing, the affordance of situation means that the situation creates the objects of perception, in accordance with the possibilities afforded by the situation (p. 221). 25

39 [N]o isolated theory of language or the mind will be able to explain the workings of the human user in a concrete situation that depends neither on the mind nor on language exclusively and that consequently cannot be expressed in terms specifically created for describing the linguistic or mental domains. (Mey, 2006b, p. 8) Moreover, in order to amplify the pragmatic act theory, Mey (2001) constructs action theory which views language from two aspects: agent and act. Agent is the member resource (i.e. background knowledge) of individual (e.g. gender, age, education degree, etc.) and act is the language resource (i.e. adaptability ) in the context. (p. 214). Both the agent and act are constrained and afforded by the society. That is to say, to perform appropriately in a specific situation with the fitting utterance is what the social beings face in everyday life. The interrelationship between the agent and the context is like how we act in the world: the world limits our performance whereas at the same time, our act portrays the world. Just like the common scene metaphor states, the actors are acting in the scene in terms of the role setting, [b]ut not only does the scene determine our acting, our actions determine and reaffirm the existing scene (Mey, 2001, p. 219). Therefore, the pragmatic acts theory with a full-scale assessment resolves the impractical viewpoint of speech act theory since it is no more restricted by the literal meaning. Instead, the act can be interpreted 26

40 according to the given context. Besides, the theory of pragmatic acts can be adopted universally not just for English verbs or acts only. As a necessary outcome, Mey (2001) outlined a model of pragmatic act theory as shown in Figure. 1. He explains that pragmeme is the generalized pragmatic act which connects the choices of language (e.g. speech acts, indirect speech acts, psychological acts, etc.) and the presented elements in the context (i.e. INF : inferencing, REF : establishing reference, REL : relevance, VCE : voice, SSK : shared situation (or dialogue) knowledge, MPH : metaphor, M : metapragmatic joker). Besides, practs are pragmatic acts which refer to a particular pragmeme as its realizations and every pract is at the same time the allopract. (p. 221) since no practs are the same. The identification of a pract is through the interlocutors perceptions towards the situation and the actual effect of the pract in the situation. Fig. 1 The scheme of pragmatic act theory (Mey, 2001, p. 222) 27

41 To sum up, the pragmatically analytical vision remedies the symptoms of the mere linguistic (i.e. syntactic, semantic) myopia. It helps to depict the realities of human activity in the society and in the world. The creativities and boundless malleability of human language are also elaborated in the full play. Nevertheless, Mey s (2001, 2006b) model of pragmatic act theory can be further developed. The actual content (i.e. social context) of human language and its interplay with pragmatic act theory (i.e. the characterization of pragmemes) are still an issue to be explored and extended. Section reviews scholars debates regarding the norms of interpretation, explanatory movement and analyzing angles of pragmemes. Furthermore, I will turn to scholars illustrations of pragmemes and applications of pragmatic act theory in Section The norms of interpretation and the explanatory movement In light of Mey s (2001) proposition, Capone (2005) addresses the importance of analyzing the units of pragmatic, viz., the pragmemes. He at first defines pragmemes as situated speech acts which bring certain effects in the utterance as the final goal, e.g. change the roles of the participants within it, exchanging/assessing information, (p. 1357). The effect of pragmemes works when an utterance is performed in a certain situation with a specific context. Capone (2005) refers to the 28

42 embedded elements of the pragmemes which he claims to be the decisive point of an interpretation: A pragmeme always requires three types of embedding: the embedding of an utterance in a context of use, with an aim to determine the referential anchors that complete the propositional form of the utterance; the embedding in rules that systematically transform whatever gets said in a context into whatever is meant there, in conformity with the social constraints and rules bearing on the utterance in question; the embedding in the context, whose feature are transferred onto the utterance by eliminating semantic or otherwise interpretative ambiguities and enriching further its (range of) interpretations, by making them more specific (p. 1357). The three embedded elements (i.e. utterance, rules and context) constitute a relevant reading. By way of explanation, the literal forms, the rules (e.g. language rules and social rules), and the features of context are the threefold that constrain and characterize an interpretation. This also confirms what Mey (2001, 2006b) has emphasized: an utterance should be interpreted in the recognized context. Further, Capone (2005) considers pragmemes (i.e. which follows Mey s term) as the transformations of interpretations. Unlike other scholars who propose the specific norms of discourse types through various angles (e.g. sociology, conversation 29

43 analysis, philosophy of language, p.1359) in determining the interpretation of speech act and in transforming the illocutionary force (e.g. Gumperz, 1977; Stalnaker, 2002; Atkinson et al., 1978; Dummnett, 2003), Capone considers pragmemes as an unified term which harmonizes all the rules (e.g. language rules, context rules) into a relevant interpretation (i.e. illocutionary value of a speech act p.1360). More importantly, Capone extends the analyses of pragmemes by examining different types of discourse (e.g. Vienil ( Come! ), I saw you, Can I help you?, Are you being served?, You should tell your son that he has got to get along well with everybody, M. has never flattered me ). He claims that different types of discourse will transform the pragmemes differently. He also points out that the fallacy of the traditional speech act is its neglect of the fact that ritualized actions take on ritual shapes, and that anything that departs from this ritual shape takes on a different significance (p.1364). In other words, even though the indirect speech act provides a room for pragmatic interpretation, it fails to catch the variables of discourse, (e.g. institutional type of discourse). Therefore, he considers conventional elements as one of the indispensable characters in contextual interpretation (Capone, 2005, p.1361). In his demonstration, the conventional elements (i.e. the conventional interpretation of specific statement) contribute to those non-cancelable (i.e. non-defeasible, p. 1360) inferences in the institutional type of discourse. Capone s 30

44 (2005) analysis emphasizes the situation of utterance and the conventions governing language use (p.1369) which contributes to the societal considerations in contextualization. In contrast, Kecskes (2010b), from a social-cognitive perspective, employs the situation-bound utterances (SBUs) in order to enhance the explanatory movement of pragmatic act. Unlike Mey s (2001, 2006b) propositions, he considers both directions (i.e. outside-in and inside-out) as a more complete way. As defined by Kecskes (2010b), SBUs are a kind of practs which can be realized as specific pragamemes. He explains that situation-bound utterances (e.g. how do you do, welcome aboard, give me a hand, see you later, etc.) are neither semantic-bound idiom (e.g. make both ends meet, kick the bucket ), nor conversation routines (e.g. you know, I see, no problem ) (p. 2892). Rather, they are bound to particular situations. Therefore, SBUs are the pragmatic units which cannot be freely uttered but their meanings are fixed in a specific situation. For instance, let me tell you something raises the hearers negative expectation, and step out of the car please refers to the police stops (Kecskes, 2010b, p. 2892). Such utterances are recognized neither from the situation nor from the literal meaning, but both (Kecskes, 2010b, p. 2895). Kecskes (2003) divides the SBUs into three levels: plain, charged and loaded in terms of their semantic (i.e. literal meaning) reliance. Even though Kecskes (2010b) agrees with the contextual force of meaning 31

45 construction, he points out that Mey has put too much emphasis on the context while the utterance itself has been ignored. He informs that the literal meaning of an utterance not only represents its conventional usage but also shows the interlocutors background experiences towards the utterance. Therefore, he considers societal conditions and egocentrism as the same important element when they cooperate in meaning constructing process. In Kecskes s demonstration, the SBUs stand for certain conventional-bounded utterances whose meanings as well as their occurring situations are already set. As he points out, while Mey (2001) focuses more on context, Seale (1969) puts more emphases on utterances. What he calls for is a balance of meaning constructing process. In short, examples such as SBUs not only enrich the contents of pragmemes but also amend the explanatory movement of pragmatic act theory: [T]he explanatory movement in any pragmatic theory should go in both directions: from the outside in (actual situational context prior context encoded in utterances used) and from the inside out (prior context encoded in utterances used actual situational context) (Kecskes, 2010b, p. 2897). On the other hand, Wong (2010) raises a more general issue of the cultural factor. He firstly acknowledges the triple faces of language: form, meaning and culture. He points out that some scholars have run their theories (e.g. Grice s maxims and Brown & Levinson s politeness) in an Anglo-English specific angle which cannot be applied 32

46 universally. Wong (2010) emphasizes that the best comprehensible way to analyze the pragmemes is from a cultural perspective. In his proposition, the group-oriented culture of Singapore English represents a very different way from the individual-oriented culture of British-Anglo English when performing the pragmemes (e.g. imperative, facts and opinion expression, quality and quantity expression). He examines the utterances by focusing on the culturally constructed norm and concludes that cultural relevance is the essence of language learning. The abundant language resources can help and be helped to explain the matters of verbal action and the theoretical consolidation. Next, in Section 2.2.3, the identifications and demonstrations of pragmemes will be discussed and further characterized The interplay between contextual elements and pragmemes Mey s model of pragmatic act provides an instruction for characterizing a pragmeme. As can be seen from Figure 1 (see Section 2.2.1), the feature matrix (i.e. choices of language expression) in the left, and the textual elements in the right divide the basic two aspects for clarification (Mey, 2001, p.222). The right column represents interactants language choices while the left column shows the contextual elements in the texts. So far, the listed contextual elements are considered not comprehensive (i.e. as is shown by the dotted points) but generally specified. 33

47 After Mey s (2001) proposal of pragmatic act theory, several scholars (e.g. Allan, 2010; Blackwell, 2010; Mey, 2010; Tseng, 2010b; Inya, 2012) have attempted to further develop it. Those studies not only enrich the theory of pragmatic acts, but also contribute to the discussions towards different types of discourse. Allan (2010) and Mey (2010) recognize referring as a pragmatic act. On the one hand, Mey (2010) adopts Searle s (1980a, 1980b, 1984) Chinese room and the medical technology of expert systems as the examples to clarify the intentional feature of establishing a reference. As stated by Mey (2010), referring is a specific human, user-oriented activity (p.2882). In addition, like the indispensable description of a pragmatic act, [r] eference making is a situated process (as is speech acting itself); what I have in mind as the reference for my utterance, depends on what my interlocutors can have in mind as the possible referents for that utterance and in fact on what the entire societal situation represents for me and my interlocutors (Mey, 2010, p. 2882). In other words, referring is situation-dependent and collaboration-reliant. The particular choices of expression of the utterance in situation are recognized as an act of referring. On the other hand, Allan (2010) employs Default Semantics (cf. Jaszczolt, 2005, 2009) as the means to extend the pragmatic act theory. He examines the sentence The best architect designed this church and revises the notion towards cognitive default and conscious pragmatic inference in Default 34

48 Semantics. Nevertheless, the most relevant development of pragmemes from Allan s (2010) proposition is the situation binding feature of reference. He further suggests that not only the addresser s act of referring, but also the addressee s interpretation of the reference are pragmatic acts. This point also echoes what Mey has proposed: reading as a pragmatic act (see Mey, 2001, pp ). The collaboration between the authors and the readers (i.e. addressors and addressees) co-create the contextual affordance and the performance of pragmatic acts. In addition, as a kind of referring, naming is also considered as a pragmatic act (Allan, 2010). At last, in order to resolve the possible ambiguities towards referrings (e.g. generic reference, collective reference, and reference to natural kinds ), Allan (2010) provides the following steps for recognizing a pragmatic act of referring (p. 2930): (a) The speaker S wishes to communicate with hearer H and S has an intention towards referent r. The intentionality may precede the desire to communicate or vice versa. (b) S believes that use of the language expression er to refer to referent r will enable H to recognize r (distinguish it from potential distracters), normally, with minimum effort. 35

49 (c) For r to be recognized by H from er, S will assume that H will make recourse to CGi, that is, the common ground shared between S and H at a time period beginning ti, the time of anticipated interpretation. S must surmise what H will take to be the CGi. In spoken communications CGi is typically proximal to the time of utterance, but in written communications the time span between utterance and interpretation can be unbounded. (d) If S has the inclination and opportunity to be careful s/he will imagine him/herself in H s shoes as H seeks to recognize the referent, and S will label it accordingly. (e) Particularly in face-to-face interaction, S can rely on H s response (verbal or nonverbal) to indicate whether or not s/he has achieved referential success (this becomes part of the common ground CGi+1) and may have the opportunity to relabel the reference using an alternative expression. The above-mentioned steps offer a logical and systematic way of recognizing the pragmeme of referring in communicative situations. In Tseng s (2010b) detailed elaboration, in the scam discourse, fishing for personal details is identified as a pragmatic act. As explained by Tseng (2010b), the act of fishing is a kind of action in which the addressor s real intention of deceiving is 36

50 concealed and such action is done by intended choices of expression (e.g. metapragmatic repetition, implicit indexing, blended act). Therefore, this implicit intention of fishing may confuse the intentional feature and direct/indirect classification in the application of speech act. That is, the implicit (or real) intention of fishing (i.e. deceiving) does not intend to be recognized by the readers whereas the explicit intention of fishing (e.g. supplying personal information for applying a job) requires the readers responses. By adopting the pragmatic act theory (Mey, 2001), the act of fishing can be examined and clarified. As Tseng informs, the choice of language is like a medium of the performance which can adjust the force of the pragmeme. The performative chain (e.g. persuading the reader to click a subject line and read the message in the first place, performing an act of identity, performing directive acts, and performing a deliberate act of authenticity ) is a combination of various actions (including activity part and textual part) which are altogether performed in order to achieve the final goal fishing for personal details (Tseng, 2010b). Moreover, Tseng (2010b) associates the metaphorical demonstration of fishing as a comprehensive means to illustrate the link between choice and performance. The metaphoric utilization SCAMMING IS FISHING attracts the action, scamming and also creates a more interesting image of the illustration. Furthermore, Inya (2012) demonstrates the pragmeme defending a thesis in the 37

51 discourse of Christian apologetics. He identifies several practs (e.g. arguing, substantiating, disclaiming, authenticating, challenging and defending) which shows the features of verbal actions when Christian apologists defend their arguments. By adopting Capone s (2001, 2005) claims towards discourse (cf. Section 2.2.2), Inya identify arguing as the most salient pract in the discourse of argumentation. He indicates that in order to appeal to the readers sense of reason and judgment, the apologist employs psychological acts as the foremost choice of expression. Notably, he suggests that every practs has its significant composing contextual elements. For instance, REF (i.e. establishing reference), REL (i.e. relevance), and INF (i.e. inferencing) are the three major elements of the pract, authentication. Since the pract authenticating is for certifying the sources which can verify the arguments of theological claims, the establishing reference of the prominent characters, the relevance of the reference can lead to the reader s inference which the writer expects Why pragmatic act? The intertwining between those contextual mechanisms (i.e. activity parts and textual parts) functions not only as the ingredients of a pragmeme construction but also as a meal to be tasted (i.e. the contextual mechanisms could be pragmemes 38

52 themselves). It helps and is helped to shape the manner of verbal actions. In order to claim that pragmatic act theory is more applicable than the traditional speech act theory, several points should be specified. First of all, since pragmatic act theory positions verbal actions in the frame of social context, it releases the limitations of the rules and principles that speech act theory sets. In Tseng s (2010b) examination of the scams, the covert intention of fishing for personal details disguises as the overt intention of requesting for a supply of personal information. In such case, the intentional feature of speech act theory veils the recognition of the act. In other words, the implicit purpose of fishing blocks the identification task through the intentional channel since the real intention is actually concealed. As an alternative, [t]he notion of pragmatic acts frees language-as-action theory from the constraints of speech act theory inasmuch as action is no longer see as being performed solely by certain types of language use but understood as occurring more pervasively (Tseng, 2010b, p. 1986). Likewise, Kecskes and Zhang (2009) also suggest that communication is action-oriented, and intention is not central or indispensable to communication as pre-existing artifact but only invoked as a possible account for social actions (pp ). Allan (2010), too states that [t]here seems to be no reason to imagine that a person s intentionality, their intention towards something, counts as a pragmatic act (p. 2929). Since pragmatic deals with the act that is performed by language 39

53 users rather than with the form that their utterances are represented, the underlying goal orientation can still be identified by the components of a pragmeme (Jacobs and Jackson, 1983, p.291). Therefore, Mey s (2001) pragmatic act theory can be talked not only universally but also be more realistically. In the traditional speech act, an act is realized and characterized foremost by its syntactic and semantic features, viz., the literal forms. Under such condition, only few acts which contain specific literary forms can be explained and described while most of the acts cannot. As Mey describe, it is like the waste-basket of linguistics (2001, p.207). For instance, in Mey s (2001) exemplification, the illegal settings of the act bribing can neither be identified by any of the words or verbs that is uttered, nor by any of the speech act or semantic meanings that is represented. (cf. Mey, 2001, pp ). Instead, the user-oriented pragmatic act, its various types of act (e.g. psychological acts, prosody and physical acts) and its textual elements (e.g. voice, metaphor, metapragmatic jokers) can not only shape the feature of various pragmemes, but also warrant the performance of verbal actions. To illustrate, the pragmatic act of fishing in scam discourse is performed by several kinds of the act (e.g. psychological act, direct/indirect speech acts) and some choices of the textual elements (e.g. metapragmatic repetition, implicit indexing and blended act). As Tseng (2010b) shows, the various kinds of the act are chosen deliberately for effectively 40

54 performing the intended pragmeme. In other words, the accumulating features may not be identical and not definitely necessary, but it is the access to a successful performance of the pragmatic act. Moreover, different practs and textual elements may serve to perform certain pragmemes, and different practs may be performed distinctively in different contexts or discourses. As Capone (2001, 2005) claims, the transformative effect of pragmemes is different in types of discourse (c.f. Section 2.2.2). Likewise, Inya (2012) mentions that in the discourse of Christian apologetics, some of the specific contextual elements: REF, REL, INF, SSK and MPH are relatively effective to argue for the existence of Christ, the reliability of biblical documents, and the uniqueness of the Bible (p. 2019). Besides, in Tseng s (2010b) characterization of fishing as a pragmatic act, voice is suggested as a point of entry into the interplay of the activity parts and the textual parts of the pragmeme, since a voice both embodies an interactant/interlocutor and arises from a text in the act of reading (p. 1986, the notion from Mey, 2001, p ). Therefore, the language choices and contextual elements which shape a pragmeme constitute affordances that make possible a specific form of the context on the one hand, and on the other hand lead the performance of pragmemes to become the most salient interpretation (i.e. the non-defeasible elements of inference, cf. Section 2.2.2) to the readers. 41

55 Thus, the textual elements not only help to perform, but also help to explain the transmitting of pragmatic force. As Mey (2001) concludes, the dilemma of illocutionary and perlocutionary force can be resolved by only considering the force of the pragmeme (p. 223). In the same way, Tseng (2010b) argues that the pragmatic act of fishing is like a performative chain which transfers the force of the pragmatic act (p.1982). That is, the force is seen as being enacted accumulatively by the performance of successive utterances (Tseng, 2010b, p. 1988). Moreover, the relevance of the performance is considered as an important indicator in the force transmitting process. To map the assumptions in the context with the addressee s assumptions (i.e. interpretations) of the context, relevance is a significant factor. As Tseng (2010a) suggests, relevance should also be performed as an act, and [o]ptimal relevance will be performed by the addresser through the skillful design, articulation and presentation of their message rather than being simply a matter for the addressee s subjective judgment. (p. 576). In other words, if an act is performed with more relevance, the pragmatic force of the verbal act can be transferred more effectively. Fourthly, the listed contextual mechanisms include the elements which allow the pragmemes not only be explained from the pragmatic aspect but also from the other way (e.g. cognitive). Metaphor, as one of the listed textual elements is seen as an 42

56 important instrument of conceptual grounded cognition. Thornburg & Panther (1997, 2007) adopt metonymies (see Chapter 3) as the materials to analyze the cognitive inference of the speech acts. They give several examples (e.g. part-whole, cause-effect, ability-action, reason-action, etc.) of the metonymies as the account for indirect speech acts inferential locus. Likewise, several studies also direct the issue of metaphor and speech act (e.g. Veale & Keane, 1994; Lee, 2009; Liu, 2011). It implies that when people perform speech acts, their brains have gone through the cognitive inferential process. In addition, Tseng (2010b) identifies SCAMMING IS FISHING as a metaphor for it can help to explain the possible reason for those language choices being chosen when a text performs the act of fishing. That is, in order to gain the most effective performance, a bait in disguise is required, e.g. to perform the identity as someone who can be trusted, to show the benefit for the addressee. In particular, the persuasive force of metaphor is emphasized by several authors (e.g. Inya, 2012; Charteris-Black, 2005; Sopory, 1999). As Charteris-Black puts it, [m]etaphor is an important characteristic of persuasive discourse because it mediates between these conscious and unconscious means of persuasion between cognition and emotion to create a moral perspective on life (or ethos) (Charteris-Black, 2005, p. 13). Also, Mey (2006a) views metaphor as the instances of pragmatic acting which embodies human activities (p. 57). All these approaches hint the tight 43

57 connection between cognition and action. That is, the things we do somehow represent the perception we have, and this relation is rooted in human body and mind. However, the pragmatic approaches towards metaphorical performance do not get much attention since it is commonly recognized as a cognitive instrument in meaning making process. On the one hand, how metaphors of salvation in the Bible assist in persuading people to accept the saving from God and what the pragmatic force it represented are the two major issues of the present study. On the other hand, how the addressees perceptions and responses towards the messages of salvation achieve the collaboration of the pragmatic act of saving is also an issued to be explored. In Chapter 3, the theoretical frameworks for analyzing the biblical salvation will be elucidated. 44

58 Chapter 3 Theoretical Framework Chapter 2 has reviewed the evolution of the verbal act and it has stated the reasons why pragmatic act theory is adopted. This Chapter aims to provide a theoretical basis for the cognitive account of conceptual metaphors. The cognitive mechanisms, i.e., metaphor, metonymy and Blending will firstly be reviewed in Section 3.1 and 3.2. In order to take a closer look at the feature of addressees inference, I adopt relevance theory as an additional device. Therefore, this theory will be included in Section 3.3 as one of the major analytical tools. Furthermore, in order to add a social dimension to metaphorical discourse, Mey s (2001) model of pragmatic acting is also employed as one of the main theoretical frameworks. However, since Chapter 2 has reviewed the developments of his theory, in this Chapter, I will treat it only to demonstrate how it can be enriched by the other theoretical aspirations named here. Finally, Section 3.4 provides a modified model which can better fit the analyses of the present study. 3.1 Conceptual metaphor theory Section 3.1 scrutinizes Lakoff and Johnson s (1980) conceptual metaphor theory. Section reviews the concept of metaphorical mappings from a source to a target 45

59 domain. Continually, Section introduces embodiment and image-schema by illustrating three kinds of metaphor in order to reveal the experiential-based and norms-reflecting characteristics of conceptual metaphors. Section explains metonymy as a special tool in the cognitive linguistic explanation Metaphorical mapping Metaphor is a figure of speech that people use in language. Lakoff and Johnson (1980) conduct the discussion towards conceptual metaphor theory in their prominent book: Metaphor We Live By. As they suggest, metaphor is a concept in human thought which involves two domains mapping: source domain and target domain. They claim that rather than just for the rhetorical means which has been considered in the traditional view (eg. Aristotle, and Kennedy, 2007; Aristotle, and Butcher, 2008; Richards, 1936), metaphor functions as a way for comprehension. By adopting a more concrete or explicit domain as the source, people can comprehend a more abstract concept in the target domain. In other words, the target is understood in terms of the understanding or experiences towards the source. The mappings between the two domains are structured so as to be conceptualized and be understood. Therefore, metaphor is not merely a matter of linguistic expressions, but thought and action (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980, p.3). Besides, metaphor is not a patent for poets or for 46

60 talented writers. It is, actually, a handy tool for common people in their everyday communication (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980; Johnson, 1987; Lakoff, 1993; Lakoff & Turner, 1989; Sweetser, 1990). The above claims are exemplified in the following passage: It s important how you package your ideas. He won t buy that. That idea just won t sell. There is always a market for good ideas. That s a worthless idea. He s been a source of valuable ideas. I wouldn t give a plugged nickel for that idea. Your ideas don t have a chance in the intellectual marketplace. (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, pp , emphasis original) The example above shows a general usage of the metaphor, IDEAS ARE COMMODITIES. Here, commodities are the source which provides referents to construe the abstract concept, ideas. These metaphorical expressions reveal a fact that the way people do with ideas may just like the way that they produce commodities. For example, people modify their ideas in order to get others agreements as well as they package the commodities for a best sell. The market of the ideas is a particular place (e.g. intellectual marketplace) that people have to exchange their thoughts for some specific purposes (e.g. to provide an idea so as to solve a financial crisis). As commodities, ideas can be valuable or worthless. The idea is valuable when the market is willing to pay the bill (i.e. the proposition is adopted) 47

61 whereas the idea is worthless that no one wants to give a plugged nickel, i.e., gain no acceptance and no attention. Likewise, the goal of an idea proposition is in the same manner as the goal of a commodity promotion. Besides, both of their values can be judged (i.e. as either valuable or worthless). Therefore, as a product of thoughts, ideas are structured in terms of the physical product, commodities. The metaphorical expressions function in our brain as metaphorical concepts. Accordingly, [o]ur experiences with the physical world serve as a natural and logical foundation for the comprehension of more abstract domains (Kövecses, 2010, p.7). Hence, it is quite natural that people rely on the physical experiences towards commodities as a source to conceptualize the abstract notion, ideas. In fact, we also treat ideas as the way we treat commodities. As explained by Lakoff and Johnson, we act according to the way we conceive of things (p.5). For example, people may appreciate a good idea as they enjoy a praiseworthy commodity. Similarly, people should pay an effort in order to come up with a good idea just like they also need to make an effort to be able to manufacture a valuable commodity. Therefore, the way we conceive a concept may be reflected by our attitude, action and the language we use to illustrate it. In brief, [t]he concept is metaphorically structured, the activity is metaphorically structured, and consequently, the language is metaphorically structured (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, p. 5). 48

62 Nevertheless, the mappings between these two domains are not mapped all the way around; instead, it is a partial mapping (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980; Grady, 2007). To say it is a partial mapping means that we just focus on some distinctive characteristics rather than others (e.g. the color, the shape, the materials, the manufactory, or the problem of overproduction of the commodities). For instance, people may not describe an idea as a red, beaded or a hard idea. This point is much easier to be captured when two sources with inconsistent features are mapped onto the same target (or when the same source maps to two targets with opposite features). Here is a simple example from the Bible. In the Bible, Jesus Christ is metaphorically described as a lamp (cp. John 1:29; Isaiah 53:7) as well as a Lion (cp. Revelation 5:5). In such cases, the nature of the partial mapping is obvious. On the one hand, when Jesus comes to the world and sacrifices for human, he is pure, peaceable, tender and silent as a lamb. On the other hand, when Jesus becomes the King in the Heaven, the powerful, brave, and heroic traits of a lion can therefore be characterized. Hence, the incompatibilities between a lamp and a lion are resolved by the frame of partial mapping. That is to say, when people highlight some of the features, others are concealed at the same time. Therefore, the mapping relation A is B is actually A is partially structured by B. Otherwise, one concept would actually be the other, not merely be understood in terms of it (Lakoff & Johnson, 49

63 1980, p. 13). The partial mapping nature also implies that different metaphorical entailments in a single mapping system may reflect a culture-specific or person-specific value (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980). In the example of GOD IS A KING, the entailments, GOD IS A GOVERNOR, and GOD IS A KING OF SOME PEOPLE constitute some of the a king s characteristics. Therefore, among the entailments, some people may refer specifically to authorities (e.g. dominion, judgment, rewards, punishment, pardon), some to governing attributes (e.g. meek, peaceful, merciful, humble, majestical), and others to people s attitudes (e.g. respectful, thankful, awed, submissive, surrendering). People s value towards a king may influence their view point to God. In other words, it is the experience that shapes the perceptions. Thus, some people may consider a king as a remote character and rather refer God to another metaphor, GOD IS A FATHER. Likewise, people who do not believe in God may just consider the metaphor GOD IS A KING to have a totally different entailment, e.g. GOD IS A GENERAL DESIGNATION OF CERTAIN POWER. In short, the conceptualization of metaphors is systematic and culturally shaped. The nature of partial mapping which is characterized systematically as well reveals the fact that metaphorical concepts are tied to people s everyday activities and therefore to their culture norms. 50

64 Still, there are some further issues towards the feature of metaphorical mappings. For example, there is a question about the correspondences between the two domains. That is, are there preexisting similarities between a source and a target domain? (Kövecses, 2010, p. 9). As Kövecses claims, it is not so. Those systematic coherences between a source and a target are not structured before the mappings. Instead, it is the application from a source domain to a target domain that structures the significant mappings (Kövecses, 2010). Otherwise, it seems no need to borrow the words or concepts from a source domain if the similarities ever preexists. In fact, as Kövecses (2010) indicates, the mapping process from a source to a target is largely unconscious when people apply it (p. 10). Therefore, the demonstration of the mappings is only provided for an analytical means. The other issue is about the mapping direction. As argued by Lakoff & Johnson (1980) and Kövecses, the relationship between a source and a target is unidirectional which means the metaphorical process typically goes from the more concrete to the more abstract but not the other way around (Kövecses, 2010, p.7). Take an example from salvation metaphors. The metaphor SALVATION IS SLAVE TRADE maps God to the buyer, people to the slaves, and Jesus blood to the payment. Those mappings are structured from people s experience or knowledge towards slavery to salvation. In contrast, it is quite superfluous and senseless to do the mapping the other way around, i.e., to infer 51

65 slavery from salvation. As Grady accounts, the asymmetrical directionality of conceptual metaphors confirms a fact that it is not purely a case of similarity (between source and target) (2007, p. 191). Even though some of the metaphors seem reversible, e.g., This surgeon is a butcher and This butcher is a surgeon, the meaning is actually changed. The former expresses a negative meaning towards the surgeon whereas the latter may praise the butcher positively. Kövecses explains that those reversible cases are more or less on the same level and they carry particular meaning specifications as source domains (p.28). Yet, most of the metaphors are not in a nature of reversibility (cf. Jäkel, 1993) The cognitive function based classification Through an account of cognition, metaphor is, as has discussed above, not only a matter of words, but a major feature which governs our thoughts and actions. People s conceptual system may represent their perceptions toward the world by the language they use and so conceptual metaphors are offered to see the world around us (Kövecses, 2010, p.36). As an output of the cognitive inferences, metaphorical thoughts are indeed a source to be scrutinized. Essentially, conceptual metaphors are said to be grounded in experience, either perceptual, biological, or cultural (Kövecses, 2010, p. 79). Besides, it provides rich evidence about the ways in which 52

66 some aspects of our lived experience are associated with others, for reasons that reflect basic aspects of perception, thought, and possibly neurological organization (Grady, 2007, p. 188). In other words, the metaphorical expressions are uttered based on people s bodily experiences (cf. Lakoff, 1994; Gibbs, 1994, 1999). To be classified by the cognitive function, conceptual metaphor has three categories which can help to illustrate the nature of embodiment: structural metaphors, ontological metaphors, and orientational metaphors (cf. Lakoff & Johnson, 1980; Kövecses, 2010). Structural metaphors are the metaphor with a great deal of structured sources which function to comprehend the target in conceptual mappings. Like the example that has been mentioned above, idea is structured by commodities. The physical object gives the abstract concept a set of mapping resources. For instance, the way of promoting an idea (e.g. package), the way that idea is accepted (e.g. commodities are bought and sell in the market), the measurement of the value of an idea (e.g. valuable or worthless commodities are reflected by the selling in the marketplace), and the effort we should pay when providing a good idea (e.g. a good design of the commodities is the necessary condition of a good sell). That is, our brain is structured as a manufactory which is mean to produce useful and popular commodities. In other words, the way we construe the idea is by the existing structure of the commodities. Besides, [t]he mappings not only explain why the particular expressions mean what 53

67 they do but also provide a basic overall structure, hence understanding (Kövecses, 2010, p. 38). In contrast, ontological metaphors provide less structured sources, but give a substance to abstract concepts. It shows a fact that we conceive of our experiences in terms of objects, substances, and containers (Kövecses, 2010, p. 38). It makes our expressions towards abstract concepts more sufficient and plentiful. It also allows people to refer, to quantify, and to identify a particular aspect to abstract concepts (Lakoff &Johnson,1980, p. 26). For example, to substantiate mind as a container, our psychology status can be described (e.g. You are always in my mind ). In this expression, mind is also seen as an object (i.e. the possession my identified the existence). Even though the cognitive function of ontological metaphors is only to assign a basic status to abstract concepts, these offer a fundamental system for structural metaphors (p. 38). Thus, when we talk mind as an object, it can further be structured in a source domain of books (e.g. He can read my mind ). Lakoff and Johnson (1980) give an explanation for the nature of ontological metaphors: [h]uman purposes typically require us to impose artificial boundaries that make physical phenomena discrete just as we are: entities bounded by a surface (p. 25). In other words, ontological metaphors are naturally formed by means of our experiences with physical objects, especially the bodily experiences. Therefore, personification is 54

68 also considered as one kind of the ontological metaphors (Lakoff &Johnson, 1980). As has been put in the first sentence of this paragraph, ontological metaphors provide less structured sources, but give a substance to abstract concepts. The ontological metaphors is personified as a human who can perform the action provide and give. And the structured sources, and substance are substantiated as objects which can be quantified (i.e. less, a) and delivered (i.e. provide, give) to the personified entity (i.e. abstract concepts). Kövecses (2010) suggests that [p]ersonification makes use of one of the best source domains we have ourselves, and [i]n personifying nonhumans as humans, we can begin to understand them a little better (p. 39). Orientational metaphors, on the other hand, map very little from source to target, but offer the spatial orientation as references for the target domains. Kövecses (2010) also calls it the conherence metaphor for its cognitive function is to make a set of target concepts coherent in our conceptual system (p. 40). The typical instance of orientational metaphors is the up-down relations: HAPPY IS UP; SAD IS DOWN (e.g. I m feeling down today ; Cheer up, you still have tomorrow ). Besides, in-out, front-back, center-periphery, balance-imbalance, etc. are all the instances of such kind. Furthermore, those metaphors, as indicated by Lakoff & Johnson (1980) are coherent to the image of our bodily (i.e. physical) experiences in life. The evaluation 55

69 towards those orientations also confirms specific cultural values (e.g. up is positive, down is negative). Thus, these metaphorical concepts are named as image-schema metaphor which shows the coherence between human activities and human languages (Kövecses, 2010). Not only the spatial relations, image-schema includes many other kinds of the schemed concepts, such as containers, force, motion, and contact. It covers a wide range of experiential structures that are pervasive in experience, have internal structure, and can be metaphorically elaborated to provide for our understanding of more abstract domains (Gibbs, 1999, p. 148). The basic notion of image-schema metaphor is that our sensational experiences when interacting with the world are the basic source of the language we use. That is, the bodily images form schemas as nature sources of expressions. As ontological metaphors, image-schema also serve as the basis of other concepts (Kövecses, 2010, p. 43). Through such application of the skeletal concepts, the embodiment nature of metaphors can be considered an important hint for human cognitive process exploration and also a clue for specifying particular cultural norms. Further, as suggested by Gibbs (1999), metaphor is as much a species of perceptually guided adaptive action in a particular cultural situation as it is a specific language device or some internally represented structure in the mind of individuals (p. 162). Therefore, a shift of focus from individuals mind operation, people should 56

70 consider a cultural world, that is, a model that can illustrate a cultural consistency. In the present study, metaphors act as one of the foci in performing the pragmatic act of saving (i.e. salvation). The religious terms not only shape the feature of the pragmeme (cf. Chapter 2), but also afford its performance. The cultural features of the pragmeme (i.e. saving) may imply that people s interpretation and the contextual affordance are constrained by their knowledge and experiences towards the metaphors being used. Yet, the cognitive account of the conceptual metaphors does not serve as a comprehensive model for analyzing the pragmeme. Therefore, in Section 3.1.3, 3.2 and 3.3, more than one trope and mechanisms will further be introduced so as to form a suitable model for the socio-cognitive analyses Metonymy There is another figure, namely, metonymy. Lakoff & Johnson (1980) define metonymy as using one entity to refer to another that is related to it (p. 35). More specifically, metonymy is a cognitive process in which one conceptual entity, the vehicle, provides mental access to another conceptual entity, the target, within the same domain, or idealized cognitive model (ICM) (Kövecses, 2010, p. 173). In other words, the vehicle entity provides mental access to the target entity, and the relation between these entities is close (p.173). The idealized cognitive model (ICM) 57

71 signifies a coherent whole in our experience of the world as they co-occur repeatedly (p.173). It is different from the process of metaphorical mappings, metonymy only accesses within the same domain, and it mainly functions for referring (Lakoff &Johnson, 1980). Besides, the formula of metonymy is A FOR B, which means we use A to stand for B. As can be shown from the following examples, the part stands for the whole: The automobile is clogging our highways. (= the collection of automobiles) We need a couple of strong bodies for our team. (= strong people) There are a lot of good heads in the university (= intelligent people) I ve got a new set of wheels. (= car, motorcycle, etc.) We need some new blood in the organization. (= new people) (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, p. 36, emphasis original) Nevertheless, metonymy can also be seen as a way to understanding. In the part-whole metonymies above, the particular parts being referred to stand for the whole highlight the focus of the utterance. That is, to mention only the head of people is to focus on the intelligence of people; and to refer only the body of people is on the other hand to highlight the need of energetic people; and to refer only the blood of people may stress the flow of the new elements (or new ideas) that the people can bring to the organization. Hence, it is more than the substitution function, the 58

72 foregrounded elements state more than merely an alternative referring (Radden & Kövecses, 1999). Compared to conceptual metaphors, the relation between A and B (i.e. A FOR B) is more obvious since the referred A and the replaced B are in the same domain, and generally A is the subcategory of B (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980; Croft, 1993). As metaphor, metonymy also reflects the bodily perception and culturally shaped value. For instance, if we say He has a meeting with Einstein. Einstein here may stand for a physics class or his theory of relativity, or maybe a biography book of Einstein, a scientific debate, etc. The point is that Einstein stands for a name of genius, a standard role in modern physics, therefore, when we refer to his name, we act like the way towards something that is tough, weighty which is concerning to intelligence. We don t just consider Einstein as a person, we think of it with all the related things, his background, his work, his image, his status, and his contribution, etc. What we act towards this referred name may reflect by the supposed meaning or the related sources. As conceptual metaphors, our thoughts, attitudes, and actions are bound by the referential metonymy when we pick a significant part to stand for a whole (or another part that is in the same domain) (Lakoff &Johnson, 1980, p. 39). On the other hand, Panther and Thornburg (2007) regard metonymic links as a criterion of contingent which implies that the links between those substituted and 59

73 substituting elements do not exist by conceptual necessity (p. 240). This claim at the same time negates Radden & Kövecses (1999) classification of the three-types metonymic relations (pp ). As they suggest, although this criterion may be problematic in some way, it is necessary for it can distinguish metonymy from hyponymy and entailment (p. 241). They further propose a definition for recognizing metonymies: a. Conceptual metonymy is a cognitive process where a source content provides access to a target content within one cognitive domain. b. The relation between source content and target content is contingent (conceptually nonnecessary), i.e., in principle defeasible. c. The target content is foregrounded, and the source content is back-grounded. d. The strength of the metonymic link between source and target content may vary depending, among other things, on the conceptual distance between source and target and the salience of the metonymic source. (Panther & Thornburg, 2007, p. 242) Panther and Thornburg (2007) also provide a classification of the pragmatic function of metonymy. They inform that metonymy is not merely a referential phenomenon, but it serves other pragmatic purposes as well (p. 246). The pragmatic functions of metonymy are referential, predicational, propositional (i.e. referential + 60

74 predicational), and illocutionary functions. Those functions show the pervasive adoptions of metonymies in everyday communication. For example, as for the illocutionary, the indirect request Can you lend me your sweater? connects a BEFORE scenario to the CORE intention of the speech act (i.e. invokes the hearer s ability to lend the sweater and performs an indirect request in order to impose a more or less strong obligation of the hearer p. 247). The fundamental notion of this case is that since a referring to a person can invoke a whole background images and attributes towards that person, a referring of a speech act in the same way can stand for the speech act itself (p.247). In addition, several scholars (e.g. Goossens, 1990, 2002; Mendoza and Velasco, 2002; Geeraerts, 2002, Panther & Thornburg, 2002) demonstrate the various interplays between metaphor and metonymy. Those experiments and examples reveal a fact that metaphor and metonymy are not separated; they are, actually, interacted. In some factions of the Christian theology, God is defined as the Trinity which includes the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Since they are seen as a whole (i.e. One God), the referring to the particular person may represent different characteristics or purposes. For example, the referring of the Father highlights the creating work of the world; the Son (Jesus Christ) represents God s salvation while the Holy Spirit may stand for God s leading and inspiring of human souls (cf. Gunton, 2003; Hobbs, 2005). 61

75 That is, the distinct identities not only characterize the specific exposition of God, but it also provides people the understanding towards God s attributes. Besides, it also implies that, the referential, predicational, propositional and illocutional functions of metonymies as well serve to the performance of pragmatic act (since the referring of the Son may involve some special purpose in performing the pragmatic act of saving). Papafragou (1996) mentions that there are basically two reasons that people adopt metonymies in communication: (i) (if there is an extra processing effort of metonymic description), the extra effort of processing metonymic descriptions should be offset by its cognitive effects; (ii) it is the cost-efficient identification of metonymies that achieves its referential purposes more economical than literal descriptions (pp ). This as well confirms the communicative principle of relevance4. Further, Lakoff & Johnson (1980) mention a special case of metonymy which is called the symbolic metonymy (p. 40). This kind of metonymy specifies the culture-specific norms of certain groups. For example, in Christianity, there is a symbolic metonymy: DOVE FOR HOLY SPIRIT (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, p. 40). When people see doves, they think it as a symbol of the Holy Spirit (cp. Matthew 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; John 1:36). The dove represents the qualities of a bird and it flies gracefully, glides silently, and is typically seen coming out of the sky and 4 I will present a more clear review of Relevance in Section

76 landing among people just as the attributes of the Holy Spirit (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, p. 40). As Lakoff & Johnson (1980) conclude, the grounded images toward such symbolic metonymy are best illustrated in cultural and religious representations: The conceptual systems of cultures and religions are metaphorical in nature. Symbolic metonymies are critical links between everyday experience and the coherent metaphorical systems that characterize religions and cultures. Symbolic metonymies that are grounded in our physical experience provide an essential means or comprehending religious and cultural concepts. (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, p. 40) In the present study, there are at least two symbols involved, one is the lamb, the other is the cross which respectively symbolizes Jesus sacrifice and justification. These two symbols, especially the cross are meaningful for Christians. Yet, it seems that the cross is symbolized because of Jesus crucifixion (on the cross) while the lamb is symbolized because of Jesus manner of sacrificing (cp. Isaiah 53:7). The different sources (i.e. the former is from an event, and the latter is from the feature) between the two symbolic metonymies may imply different levels of the significance5. Section 3.1 has reviewed the mapping of metaphors, the three basic kinds of metaphors (i.e. structural metaphors, ontological metaphors, and orientational 5 I will return to this issue in Chapter 4. 63

77 metaphors ), and metonymy. It shows the nature of conceptual mappings and the experience based application. People adopt metaphor and metonymy as the means for comprehension and referring. Section 3.2 will demonstrate another conceptual mapping model which shows a richer account of cognitive examination, namely, blending. 3.2 Blending The theories towards conceptual metaphor and metonymy have afforded a great content in unraveling the puzzle of cognitive process and conceptual grounding. However, there are still some unsolved problems remained. For example, the typical instance, SURGEON AS BUTCHER. That is, the goal of healing (i.e. as a doctor) and the means of butchery (i.e. cleaver) are the incompetence that cannot be inferred through the two domains mapping. Also, neither the clumsiness, nor its catastrophic consequences, appear in those [two domains] ((Fauconnier & Turner, 1998, p. 279). Instead of the two domains mapping, Fauconnier & Turner (2002) provide an extending explanation of the cognitive operation, to wit, blending. Blending is a conceptual integration which involves the mappings across at least four mental spaces: two input spaces, one generic space and one blended space. They use a monk s journey riddle as a fancy example to show the conceptual blending and 64

78 which is shown below: A Buddhist Monk begins at dawn one day walking up a mountain, reaches the top at sunset, meditates at the top for several days until one dawn when he begins to walk back to the foot of the mountain, which he reaches at sunset. Make no assumptions about his starting or stopping or about his pace during the trips. Riddle: Is there a place on the path that the monk occupies at the same hour of the day on the two separate journeys? (Fauconnier & Turner, 2002, p. 39) For answering this riddle, the unrealistic imagination in our brain gives a space for the monk to meet himself in the same place at the same hour of the day on the two separate journeys. This is the distinctive function of our conceptual network. It can be seen from Figure 2, there are four circles which denote our mental spaces. According to Fauconnier & Turner (2002), mental spaces are small conceptual packets constructed as we think and talk, for purposes of local understanding and action (p. 40). In other words, those are the evoked spaces which carry specific frames of background knowledge and the inferential results of the conceptual mappings. Within the mental spaces, there are two input spaces which correspond to the two journeys of the monk. Besides, there is a generic space which joints the common elements in both input spaces (i.e. a moving individual and his position, a path linking foot and 65

79 summit of the mountain, a day or travel, and motion in an unspecified direction, p. 41). Finally, the forth circle, the blended space integrates the two input spaces into one path, and two individuals walk in a single day with two different directions (i.e. upward and downward). There are three basic steps which fulfill the blending. First of all, the blended space is the composition of the two input spaces (p. 42). That is, the two directions (i.e. up and down), and two monks (i.e. a1 and a2 ) walk in the same day (i.e. d ) of the mountain journey. This step comprises the projections from the two input spaces and make new relations available which didn t exist in the separate inputs (Fauconnier & Turner, 1998, p. 271). Secondly, the two monks (i.e. a1 and a2 ) meet when they are in the middle of the path, and this stage is called completion (p. 43). [K]nowledge of background frames and cognitive and cultural models allows the composite structure projected into the Blend from the Inputs to be viewed as part of a larger self-contained structure in the Blend (Fauconnier & Turner, 1998, p. 271). In the blended space, the scenario of the two monks journey can be simulated with the corresponding time and the starting points (i.e. the meeting process of the two monks journey), and this is the third step, named elaboration (p. 44). The elaboration consists in cognitive work performed within the Blend, according to its own emergent logic (Fauconnier & Turner, 1998, p. 271). In general, the bidirectional 66

80 inference cannot co-occur in the two domains mapping. In contrast, the three steps (i.e. composition, completion and elaboration) with the four domains mapping achieve the projection of the blended space. In addition, the two monks (i.e. a1 and a2 ) in the blended space project back to the two input spaces as well as the meeting place and the time of the day. There is no conflict to the original elements. [A]ll these sameness connections across spaces seem to pop out automatically, yielding a flash of comprehension (p. 44). Hence, the monk can occupy the path at the same hour of the day on the two separate journeys. Fig. 2 Blended spaces (Fauconnier & Turner, 2002, p.45) 67

81 In order to construct a conceptual integration of blending, there are several essential elements should be stated. As has been mentioned above, there should be at least four mental spaces: two input spaces, a generic space, and a blended space. The four mental spaces constitute the conceptual integration network (p. 47). The matching of the counterparts in two input spaces (i.e. which is indicated by the solid line in Figure 3) is also required since the cross-space mappings set up the connections of the input spaces. Therefore, two input spaces can project the paired counterparts to a generic space (p. 47). Yet, a generic space does not always need to be accessible before the integration network, but it is often constructed and elaborated along with the other spaces and connections (Fauconnier & Turner, 1998, p. 270). Through the three steps in the blended spaces which have been clarified above (i.e. composition, completion and elaboration ), the new construction is projected, and the emergent structure gives a new content of the illustration (p. 48). Note that not all of the related elements project to the blended space; rather, it is a selective projection (p. 47). Figure 3 shows the basic diagram of a Blending system. The circles are mental spaces, the solid lines are cross-spaces matching, the dotted lines stand for connections between those spaces, and the square in the center of the Blend is an emergent structure. 68

82 Fig. 3 The basic diagram (Fauconnier & Turner, 2002, p. 46) Additionally, there are several conditions which should be satisfied when one construct a Blend, and which are called the optimality principles (Fauconnier & Turner, 1998, p. 280). Integration is the first condition which postulates every space in the network to have integration (p.280). Second, the web of the blend should be kept in an simple connections to the input spaces and without additional surveillance or computation (p.280). Thirdly, the blending space should allow the unpacking work for the understanders to reconstruct the inputs, the cross-space mapping, the generic space, and the network of connections between all these spaces (p.280). Fourthly, the topology of the blend ensures the projections between input 69

83 spaces matched all together. Furthermore, there should be a good reason for the elements appearing in the blend so as to run a significant blend (p.281). Besides, the relationship between the input spaces is diverse. For instance, it can be the connections of identity or transformation or representation, analogical connections and the metaphoric connection (p. 47). In this mechanism, viz., the matching and projection of blending, the analysis of metaphor can be more precise, and we can better handle certain problems that arise in connection with the metaphor analysis (Kövecses, 2010, p. 272). Moreover, as demonstrated by Fauconnier & Turner (2002), blending can have a wide application, for example, transfer of emotions, and inferences, counterfactual reasoning, conceptual change and creativity in science, integrated action, and construction of identity through compression (pp ). In short, Blending theory mended the shortcoming of the two domains mapping and provided a more colorful view of metaphor theory. It serves in the present study as a means to reveal the metaphorical and performative configurations of the pragmatic act of saving (cf. Chapter 4). As Fauconnier (2004) puts it, [i]n doing away with distinct semantic and pragmatic components, cognitive theories actually hightlight the centrality of pragmatic operations in meaning construction. (p. 661) 70

84 3.3 Relevance theory As a sequel to Grice s Cooperative Principle (cf. Grice, 1961, 1989), Sperber and Wilson (1995) describe an essential feature of human communication, viz., Relevance. Relevance is seen as a major means in human communication that a hearer can match his/her assumptions (i.e. interpretation) with a speaker s assumptions (or intention) in a given context. As they define, [a]n assumption is relevant in a context if and only if it has some contextual effect in that context (Sperber & Wilson, 1995, p.122). They argue that having contextual effect is a necessary condition for relevance, such as contextual implications, contradictions, and strengthenings (pp ). Besides, they suggest that people can intuitively recognize relevance in a context, i.e. people can consistently distinguish relevant from irrelevant information, or in some case, more relevant from less relevant information (p. 119), which also implies that relevance is gradable. However, a small contextual effect of an assumption is even not considered as relevant. Therefore, they additionally specify the extent conditions to illustrate the value of relevance: Relevance Extent condition 1: an assumption is relevant in a context to the extent that its contextual effects in this context are large. Extent condition 2: an assumption is relevant in a context to the extent that the 71

85 effort required to process it in this context is small. (Sperber & Wilson, 1995, p. 125) These two conditions state the necessity and sufficiency that the contextual effects of an assumption should be. It tells a fact that the contextual effects of an assumption in a given context are not a self-evident assessment of the value of relevance, but the metal processing effort should as well be taken into account. In other words, when other things being equal, the greater the processing effort, the lower the relevance (p.124). Although relevance is gradable, it is not quantifiable because the notion towards its degree judgment is comparative, rather than quantitative (p. 129). Sperber & Wilson explain that relevance is not a tool to measure the contextual effects and processing effort in the context, but to describe how the mind assesses its own achievements and efforts from the inside, and decides as a result to pursue its efforts or reallocate them in different directions (p.130). To illustrate the above points, we can now see an example which is given by Wilson and Sperber (2004, p.609). The premise of this artificial example is that Mary does not like most kinds of the meat and she is even allergic to chicken. She calls her host to find out the menu and the host may tell her the following hypothetical answers: 72

86 (1) We are serving meat. (2) We are serving chicken. (3) Either we are serving chicken or (72 3) is not 46. These three hypothetical answers are all considered relevant to Mary, but (2) is more relevant than (1) and (3). Accordingly, since the value of relevance is comparative, (2) is comparatively more relevant than (1) because of the contextual implications (i.e. contextual effect). That is, the implication informed by (1) is actually contained in (2). Therefore, when the host refers to (2), there should be no need to allude to (1). Conversely, if only (1) is mentioned, the supplement of (2) is indispensable. Likewise, (2) is more relevant than (3) because the processing effort of (2) is comparatively less than it of (3). It is quite clear that (2) and (3) contain the same contextual implications (i.e. they are logically equivalent ). However, (3) requires more processing effort than (2) since it contains more messages (i.e. it requires more effort to process the second disjunct is false and the first is therefore true ). However, there is no clear-cut between the values of relevance of (1) and (3) since both of the contextual effects and processing efforts are not equal and therefore, barely comparable. In addition, relevance is not a speaker-specific or hearer-specific operation, but it is mutually oriented. Hence, [t]o achieve her communicative intention, the communicator has to choose one of a range of different stimuli which would all make 73

87 her particular informative intention mutually manifest (p. 157). In other words, the hearer may believe that the speaker s assumptions are the most relevant stimulus which is worthy to be processed as the ostensive stimulus (i.e. the stimulus which are used to attract the audience s attention and focus it on the communicator s intentions (p. 153)). Sperber & Wilson also suggest that people intuitively aims at maximal relevance, thus their choice of the context is another factor to compute the degree of relevance (p. 144). That is, the more accessible the context, the less the processing effort, and the greater the relevance. Therefore, an ostensive-inferential communication as Sperber & Wilson called, involves the communicators mutual participations. Both the informative intention and communicative intention should be mutually manifest (Wilson & Sperber, 2004). To put it differently, the speakers informative intention that is informed in a communication leads to the hears mental process towards relevance. Besides, since every ostensive stimulus is presumably to convey an optimal relevance, communicators can therefore offer their processing effort on which they consider as the most relevant input (Wilson & Sperber, 2004, p. 612). Nevertheless, although communicators are expected to process the ostensive stimulus as an optimal relevance, their abilities and preferences are taken into consideration (p. 612). Thus, there are still some conditions that the communicators 74

88 are unwilling or unable to provide the processing efforts towards the ostensive stimulus (p. 612). Under such conditions, Grice s maxims (i.e. Quantity maxim and Quality maxims) and Cooperative Principle may therefore be violated. Wilson & Sperber (2004) argue that Grice s frameworks of the inferential process (i.e. maxims and Cooperative Principle) are not essential to communication or comprehension for they consider the inferring process should be accounted by pragmatic aspect (p. 613). The following procedure states the Relevance-theoretic comprehension as an alternative view: Relevance-theoretic comprehension procedure a. Follow a path of least effort in computing cognitive effects: Test interpretive hypotheses (disambiguations, reference resolutions, implicatures, etc.) in order of accessibility. b. Stop when your expectations or relevance are satisfied (or abandoned). (Wilson and Sperber, 2004, p. 613) It tells a procedure of an optimal relevance which can be achieved when the speaker offers an ostensive stimulus that can at once satisfy the hearer s expectation with the less processing effort and therefore follows the path to optimal relevance. Although the hypothetic formula might be wrongly formed (i.e. because of the non-reprehensive feature of relevance), it is the best a rational hearer can do (p. 75

89 614). On the other hand, metaphor and hyperbole may be seen as overtly violating the maxim of truthfulness (e.g. saying I am so hungry that I could eat a horse may be considered as the violation of truthfulness since it is hard for a person to eat a horse), thus Wilson & Sperber (2004) further suggest abandoning the maxim of truthfulness but treating the expectations of truthfulness as relevance (p.619). As a cognitive psychological theory, relevance theory suggests a predicable generalization of inferential process and which can be combined with other mechanisms in describing the features of communication. It not only helps to describe communicators mental computation of stimuli (i.e. inferential process) but also draws a plausible formula to the configuration of comprehension (i.e. relevance). In the present study, the distinct choice of the figurative expressions i.e., metaphors in performing the pragmatic act, may convey its functional value that are considered more relevant than literal expositions. It confirms what Sperber and Wilson say, [t]he speaker is presumed to aim at optimal relevance, not at literal truth (1995, p. 233). One assumption of the present study is that, the metaphors which being adopted in performing the pragmatic act of saving (i.e. salvation) may invoke more cognitive effects or require less processing effort than the non-metaphorical configurations. Additionally, if it is true, then, the most commonly used metaphor may be implied as the ostensive stimulus to the optimal relevance. This assumption is not arbitrary; it 76

90 comes from the notion of what Sperber and Wilson call resemblance (1995, p. 232). That is, as Fig. 4 shows, there may be two possible representations of the thoughts (i.e. mental state), one is an actual representation, and the other is a desirable representation (which can be processed by the principle of relevance). Fig. 4 Aspects of verbal communication (Sperber & Wilson, 1995, p. 232) A logical operation of the figurative expressions is that when a literal expression (i.e. an actual representation) requires more processing effort to the expected conclusions, then, the figurative expression (i.e. which shares similar logical and contextual 77

91 implications with the mental states) will be chosen as the preferred representation. In short, the criterion of consistency with the principle of relevance provides a means of distinguishing those contextual implications which are shared from those which are not; that is, it gives you a way of constructing the right interpretive assumption about my informative intention (1995, p. 234). In the above Sections, the theoretical frameworks (i.e. conceptual metaphor, Blend, Relevance and pragmatic act) of the present study have been shown; Section 3.4 further develop a modified model for the analysis of metaphor and pragmatic acts. The modified model is basically for a socio-cognitive aspect analysis which intends to reveal the relation between a metaphorical performance and pragmemes. 3.4 The modified model for a socio-cognitive analysis Kecskes (2010a) defines the socio-cognitive approach (SCA) as a speaker hearer pragmatics (p. 63). He points out that current pragmatic theories have put too much emphasis on the positive features of communication (e.g. cooperation, rapport and politeness ); as a result, the trial-and- error nature of communication and the interlocutors egocentrism6 have been ignored (p. 50). That is, as he suggests, interlocutors are individuals on their own right which 6 As for the cognitive approaches of egocentrism, see Keysar and Bly 1995; Giora 2003; Keysar and Henly 2002; Barr and Keysar, 2005; Keysar

92 respectively hold different experiences, knowledge and egocentrism. Therefore, in a real communication, the speaker s meaning of an utterance may not be equal to the hearer s interpretation towards it. In Kecskes s words, [i]nterlocutors should be considered as complete individuals with different possible cognitive statuses, with possible different interpretations of the same core common ground information, all of which has a profound effect on what the same linguistic structure may mean for any of them (2010a, p. 51). Consequently, while most of the pragmatic concerns account communication as hearer-centered (e.g. relevance, cooperative principle, maxims), Kecske calims a two-sided orientation (i.e. top-down and bottom-up). Accrodingly, what he argues for is the doublesidedness of context (p. 55) since an aim of the socio-cognitive analysis is to eliminate the ostensible conflicts between the two views [(i.e. cognitive and pragmatic views)], and propose an approach that integrates their considerations into a holistic concept of communication (p. 58). Therefore, Kecskes proposes an alternative view with the following four traits that can shape the double-sided features of communication: (Kecskes, 2010a, p. 58) 79

93 He explains that [c]ommunication is the result of the interplay of intention and attention, as this interplay is motivated by the individuals private socio-cultural backgrounds (p. 58, emphasized original). In fact, communication can be measured by these two forces (i.e. intention and attention). There are three types of intention being specified: informative, performative, and emotive (Kecskes & Zhang, 2009, p. 340). The informative intention brings about a new information, the performative intention on the other hand perform an action in order to change a state or reaction of the hearers, and the emotive intention expresses the speaker s evaluation towards feeling, state, event or object. The intention of a communication leads the interlocutors attention to a relevant information resources processing (Kecske, 2010, p.62). Attention is also divided as followings: mindful, mindless, and mind-paralyzed which states a rough degree of attention to the corresponding cognitive resources (Kecskes & Zhang, 2009, p. 342). In addition, there are three factors which may influence interlocutors attention towards the salience: interlocutors knowledge based on prior experience, frequency, familiarity, conventionality of knowledge tied to the situation, and the interlocutors mental state or availability of attentional resources (p. 342). With the interlocutors private and actual situational experiences, their cooperation and egocentrism can evaluate the relevance which is salient to them in the communication. Besides, since the common 80

94 ground is a dynamic construct that is mutually constructed by interlocutors throughout the communicative process, intention should not only be a priori process, but it is also a post factum emergence (Kecskes & Zhang, 2009, p. 331). Therefore, the dynamic processing model of communication forms a basis for the social-cognitive examination. In short, the part of knowledge that is relevant to intention, salient to the attention, and available in the socio-cultural background will contribute to successful communication (p. 344). Kecskes (2010a) double-sided model portrays a more plausible feature of communication. In the present study, two foci are considered: one is the addressors choices of the performance, and the other is the addressees interpretations and inferences towards it. However, the social-cognitive stance adopted by the present study is not warranted by examining the four traits proposed by Kecskes. The double-angled extension of the pragmatic act theory is ensured by the two genres (i.e. Bible verses and the Christians testimonies) which characterize the pragmatic act of saving and which also stand for the two views (i.e. speaker-hearer) performances. Therefore, the modified model of the present study will not follow Kecskes proposal but put a special emphasis on the issue of the configuration of the pragmeme (i.e. saving). Nevertheless, since the present study concerns a socio-cognitive approach, the analyses towards the pragmeme will therefore afford to realize both individual and 81

95 social aspects. That is, considering the two genres in relation to each other offers a reciprocal perspective on metaphor production and reception, thus accounting for the speaker-hearer operations of communication. In Mey s model, both the activity and textual parts are presented (cf. Section 2.2.1, Fig. 1). However, since the present study aims to demonstrate a textual examination, the activity part is therefore omitted. The two columns in Fig. 5 show the bifocal of the present study: cognitive and pragmatic elucidation of the pragmeme. Because conceptual metaphor is one of the major characters in performing the pragmatic act of saving, the left-hand column lists the main elements in order to represent the features of the metaphorical performance. Additionally, since metaphors can be seen as a subset of conceptual blending, blending is a part of the cognitive operations as well. The right-hand column is almost the same with Mey s model. The INF (inference), REF (reference), REL (relevance), VCE (voice), SSK (shared cultural knowledge), and M (metapragmatic joker) provide a multi-angled examination to the performance of metaphors. Nevertheless, the classification does not intend to differentiate the two parts into disparate divisions. The taxonomy is sorted with a goal of viewing conceptual metaphors as a distinct choice in performing the pragmatic act. The analyses aim not only to look into the cognitive linguistic aspect of the metaphorical performance, but also comprehensively interpret the 82

96 performance through pragmatic considerations. Yet, although some of the elements in the pragmatic part may be commonly discussed in other approaches (e.g. relevance is more likely to be identified by cognitive psychological approach), it is not an issue for the present study to argue for the attributions. The analyses will focus on illustrating the characteristics of the metaphorical performance on the one hand, and people s comprehension (interpretation), the contextual effect and pragmatic force transmitting on the other hand. Fig. 5 Modified model of pragmatic acts for a socio-cognitive analysis 83

97 Chapter 4 Research Data and Data Analyses 4.1 Research data The main issue of the present study is the interrelation between metaphorical language and pragmatic acts. The research data were mainly collected from the Bible which is characterized by metaphorical language and contains many examples of pragmatic acts. Besides, the Christians testimonies as the addressees responses will also be included7. The analyses of the data investigate the pragmatic act of salvation ( to save ) performed by the metaphors of slave trade. Also, other metaphors (e.g. justification, atonement, and adoption) which can better explain the whole view of salvation will be examined. The socio-cognitive dimension will be considered in order to develop a perspective that aims to build up a tight connection between the two sides (i.e. cognitive and pragmatic) Data collection and rationale One of the major types of data the present study draws on is verses from the New International Version (NIV) Bible. Regarding the source domain slave trade, the key words for identifying the relevant verses are slave, ransom, redemption ; 7 The testimonies were extracted from a Chinese Christianity website shui shen zhi chu (水深之處, deep water ) (luke54.org). 84

98 and other words relating to criminal acts and business transactions are atonement, sin, buy (bought), sell (sold), price, money, etc8. There were more than 100 verses being extracted by the search terms, and 13 are chosen as the data of the present study. The chosen verses may not come from the same paragraph or may not be written by the same author. However, since the real author of the Bible is identified as God (i.e. all the words in the Bible are inspired by God) (cp. 2 Timothy 3:16-17), and the analyses of pragmatic acts mainly consider the contextual representation, the diverseness of chapters and authors should not be considered as an impediment. In fact, the consistence of the metaphorical usages adopted by different people confirms the suitability, necessity, and agreements of slave trade. It also shows people s universal intuition towards that unique source domain. On the other hand, the contextual effect and affordance are the essences of pragmatic act theory and which means pragmatic acts are identified and performed in context. Yet, the different chapters and paragraphs which are written by different people within different periods can still be seen as a uni-context in the Bible. That is, for a reader, the Bible is a book which contains the collective information about God. Therefore, the metaphors of salvation which seem like segments in different chapters can actually be seen as a 8 The key words for searching the relevant verses include singular and plural (i.e. for countable nouns) e.g. slave and slaves; and different tenses (i.e. for verbs) e.g. sell and sold, and different parts of speech, e.g. redeem and redemption. Besides, the search terms also contain the translations of Chinese, e.g. slave is also searched by nupu 奴僕 and nuli 奴隸; and ransom is searched by shujia 贖價, shuchu 贖出, shuhui 贖回 and jiushu 救贖. Therefore, for saving the space, not all the search terms are listed. 85

99 consecution. Besides, the choice of the Bible version is another factor which needs to be clarified here. Because the Bible was originally written in Greek and Hebrew, the translation to modern English is required by a great number of English-speakers. The King James Version (KJV) of the Bible, firstly adopted by most of the Christians and churches, is considered as the closest version to the original one. However, it became not so preferable through the changes of language habits. The archaic wording and phrases in KJV, such as thys, thous and whosevers failed to capture the contemporary tone and also hindered the comprehension towards the original meaning (CBT, 2011, p. 1). By contrast, the New International Version (NIV) has a more successful approach which balances the twofold considerations: accuracy and representation of English with idiomatic style. As suggested by the Committee on Bible Translation (CBT) (2011), the NIV version provides its readers with the experiences similar to those of original audiences and it is also perceived by its readers with responses of a great sale. According to the Christian Booksellers Association, NIV is the best sale Bible version on both dollar and unit sales in the United States (CBA, 2013). It is also recommended by many pastors and churches. As Jack Wellman (2011), the pastor at Mulvane (KS) Brethren church and also a Christian author, puts it, [t]he NIV as it is called, is the most often used, the most 86

100 reliable, and the most often quoted of any of the major translations that are used today (p.1). Altogether, the accredited accuracy and the natural style of English are the most substantial reasons for the use of NIV Bible for this study. As for the addressees viewpoints or responses of the presented act, Christians testimonies are included as another examining data. As pointed out in Chapter 3, the socio-cognitive stance is realized by the cognitive and pragmatic account towards both addressor s and addressee s performances. Therefore, the addressees responses to the pragmeme saving should be noted in order to form a complete act. In the pragmatic act of saving, Christians faith is the positive response of it. Hence, the stories selection will focus on the process that people accept Jesus Christ s salvation and become Christians. The present study selected 7 testimonies from 100 random samplings. The testimonies were collected from a Chinese Christian website, shui shen zhi chu ( 水深之處, deep water ) (luke54.org). It is a gospel website which contains online webcast, daily scriptures, poetry appreciation and people s testimonies and stories. The reason for choosing it as the resource is that the testimonies there are rich and complete and those are often written and posted from the first point of view. In addition, since that is an open website where everyone can read the content without having to register or log-in, the resources are relatively easy to obtain. Besides, this choice has no bearing on the consideration of different Christian denominations. 87

101 4.1.2 Data analysis methods The socio-cognitive analyses of the present study not only aim to clarify the interrelation between the cooperation of metaphor and pragmatic act, but also to extend the discussions toward societal issue in terms of cognitive concepts. Therefore, the preset study employs Lakoff & Johnson s (1980) conceptual metaphor theory (CMT), and also Mey s (2001) pragmatic act theory as the two main approaches. By virtue of the cognitive account, the pragmatic act can be demonstrated coherently and effectively with the application of conceptual metaphors. In order to get a more comprehensive view, the supplementary theory of cognitive concepts proposed by Fauconnier & Turner (2002), i.e., Blending, Sperber & Wilson s (1995) Relevance theory, and the contextual elements which have been listed in Mey s (2001) scheme of pragmatic act theory (e.g. voice, inferencing, shared situation (or dialogue) knowledge, and establishing reference) will all be adopted as the analytical components in this research. 4.2 Data analyses In order to see how the pragmatic act of salvation is construed by cognitive representations, the present study organizes the analyses as follows. Section starts with the examination of the grounding basis of the salvation metaphor. It firstly 88

102 explains the background knowledge of the slave trade as one of the source domains and then confirms the experiential claims of conceptual metaphor theory. Section demonstrates the cross analysis of the pragmatic act of salvation via both conceptual metaphor theory and pragmatic act theory. This intertwining discussion between society and cognition reveals the co-ordination of human s conception and social activities. Besides, the addressor-addressee s interaction is also one of the key points in this section. Section outlines the characteristics of the pragmatic act of salvation and concludes with the performing process of the act The metaphor of salvation As claimed by several scholars (e.g. Lakoff and Johnson, 1980; Johnson, 1987; Lakoff, 1993; Lakoff & Turner, 1989; Sweetser, 1990; Gibbs 1999; Kövecses, 2010), conceptual metaphors are experience-based and culturally shaped. That is, people s physical attachments to the world become the basic resources for them to understand abstract concepts. Therefore, to know the origin of the source domain is one way to unravel the work of cognition. In the case of salvation metaphors, the historical background of slave trade and religious rituals of sacrifice are the key resources for people to comprehend the meaning of salvation. Thus, Section discusses the source domain of salvation metaphor. Section then examines Jesus sacrifice 89

103 as the target domain of salvation metaphor which further indicates the nature of partial mapping and the complexity of coherence across several source domains The source domain of salvation metaphor: slave trade In the Bible, there are two major parts, one is the Old Testament, and the other is the New Testament. The Old Testament writes about the history of Israelites (i.e. God s chosen people) which records their conquest of Canaan to their defeat and exile in Babylon (Wikipedia, 2013). On the other hand, the New Testament is mainly about the narrations of the Christian theology. In other words, the Old Testament serves as the substantial sources in constructing the Christian theology in the New Testament. Therefore, to know the source domain of salvation metaphors can not only help to explain the meaning of salvation, but also can help to portray the cultural norms and religious customs of Israelites. As it has been written in Exodus (i.e. the second book of the Hebrew Bible), God s chosen people, the Israelites had worked as slaves in Egypt. God sees their suffering, so He sends Moses as the prophet to bring them out from the slavery in Egypt. God also promises to give them the land of Canaan as their inheritance (cp. Exodus 2-16). The historical records were excerpted below: 90

104 Then a new king, who did not know about Joseph, came to power in Egypt. "Look," he said to his people, "the Israelites have become much too numerous for us. Come, we must deal shrewdly with them or they will become even more numerous and, if war breaks out, will join our enemies, fight against us and leave the country." So they put slave masters over them to oppress them with forced labor, and they built Pithom and Rameses as store cities for Pharaoh. But the more they were oppressed, the more they multiplied and spread; so the Egyptians came to dread the Israelites and worked them ruthlessly. They made their lives bitter with hard labor in brick and mortar and with all kinds of work in the fields; in all their hard labor the Egyptians used them ruthlessly. (Exodus1: 8-14) The Exodus seems to be the preamble of the theological salvation. That is, God s saving of the Israelites and His leading and protection when the Israelites were in the wilderness, and also God s promise of the beautiful land, Canaan, are like an epitome of Christians life. That is to say, God s saving action in Exodus is explicitly performed, but Jesus sacrifice on the cross is performed symbolically. The difference between these two events is that the former can objectively be identified as a saving action, but the latter can only be interpreted as a punishment (i.e. crucifixion). Therefore, the former is the source (or the base) for the latter to be understood. In 91

105 addition, since Jesus sacrifice is not a common action, and the theological salvation is also not a self-evident notion, it is inevitably to be accounted by the substantial reference. In short, the metaphors of salvation are not only a kind of manipulation of language, but it is also a characteristic case in which adopting the historical event as the reference to build up the theology of salvation. To know the source domain of a metaphor is a gateway to discover the mapping tracks from source to target domain. As it has been pointed out, one of the prominent source domains of salvation metaphors is indentified as slave trade. It can be seen from (1): (1) Jesus replied, I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed... (John 8:34-36; emphasis mine) In (1), Jesus advanced announced his sacrifice on the cross, and he accounts for the meaning and purpose of the salvation. As Jesus said, the position for the person who sins is a slave to sin. Firstly, sin is personified as a master (or owner) of sinners, and personification is a kind of ontological metaphor (cf. Chapter 3). Secondly, people cannot physically (but spiritually) be a slave to sin; therefore, it is 92

106 metaphorical. Furthermore, the status can change from a slave to a son if the Son of God sets you free. In other words, people who do not believe Jesus as the Son of God and do not commit their sins are slaves to sin, but the one who accepts the salvation can be granted as a son of God. By far, there are two key points here; one is the reason for a person to be a slave (i.e. who sins), and the other is the condition for status transformation (i.e. being set free by Jesus). Yet, the mapping is still not complete. Further, it can be seen from (2), Apostle Peter informs the payment of the slave trade: the precious blood of Christ. (2) For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. (1 Peter 1:18-19; emphasis mine) It is a common way in a slave trade that a slave can be redeemed if someone pays for him. As can be told by its original meaning buy back (from Middle French redeemer), people originally belong to God. In (2), it also refers to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and so the blood of Christ is the payment for a slave to be bought back. In addition, in contrast to valuable objects (i.e. silver and gold), the 93

107 value of Jesus Christ s blood is manifested. Moreover, (3) expresses a similar message to (2) in that the only ransom which can redeem people s life back is costly. It also states that the only validated payment for life is from God. (3) No man can redeem the life of another or give to God a ransom for him the ransom for a life is costly, no payment is ever enough that he should live on forever and not see decay. (Psalms 49: 6-8; emphasis mine) As for the definition of sin, the Bible tells the sinful nature of human beings (cp. Galatians 5:16-21) such as in (2): it is handed down from the forefathers. That is, in the beginning, Adam, the first man in the world eats the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil which God tells him not to eat and touch, or he will die (cp. Genesis 2-3). The fruit of the tree from the knowledge of good and evil signifies a decision to govern their own mind (i.e. to evaluate good or evil by themselves), and which makes them lose God s inheritance of the eternal life. In this way, humans all inherit the sinful nature and are ruled over by sin. As indicated in (4), the wages of sin is death. The wages in a salve domain is the overall earnings after working for a long while. It should be a harvest for hard work. However, the result of a slave to 94

108 sin, as it is told, is death. In contrast, the result for being God s son is the eternal life in Christ Jesus. (4) For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 6:23; emphasis mine) Normally, the exchanges in a slave trade are money and labor power. For example, a buyer buys a slave to be his own and money is paid for a seller. That is, there should be not only a slave, but also a buyer and a seller who co-perform the action of the trade. Therefore, the beneficial exchange is an indicative element in a slave trade. Surprisingly, as (5) shows, in the Old Testament, God tells an inconsistency which is different from the normal slave trade in that although people are bought back by God, they were originally sold for nothing. Since the slaves are usually sold for something valuable, the conflict here is formed. People were sold just because they are sinned. It implies that the original owner, God, neither sell people to sin, nor receive any reward in the former trade. It as well explains that people become slaves to sin just because of their own choice (i.e. they sell themselves to the devil). Therefore, there is no authentic seller in this trade. The payment is not for the devil or sin; what salvation satisfied is the requirement of God s law (cp. Romans 5:12-6). Yet, 95

109 there is still something different in this trade. What is the real product that has been exchanged in this extraordinary transaction? It can be said that the deal of people s life is not a matter of money exchange, but the dominion of mind. In other words, the crucial point for people to be saved and to become God s children who can inherit the eternal life is not through any effort they made as the payment, but their faith. That is, their choice to believe the salvation, and their choice to return their controls of life to God. (5) For this is what the LORD says: You were sold for nothing, and without money you will be redeemed. (Isaiah 52:3; emphasis mine) So far, (1) to (5) inform the content of the metaphorical mappings from slave trade to the salvation. There are some key points which are needed to be summarized. Firstly, people are originally all the children of God, but since they choose to manage their own mind, they are away from God s protection. Secondly, people are sold as a slave to sin because they have sinful nature (cp. Romans 7). Thirdly, God pays the ransom for the people who accept the salvation and who believe in him. He redeems the people to be his own children again. Fourthly, salvation is the only way to set the slaves free again for they can inherit the eternal life in the heavenly home while the 96

110 slaves to sin will die. After all, it seems that salvation is perfectly fit in the domain of slave trade because the correspondences between the two domains are mapped consistently. Regardless, it should be noticed that (2) mentions a lamb without blemish or defect as the condition for the payment. It is obvious that a lamb may not generally be grouped under the domain of slave trade. Although one may use lambs as a payment, these are not commonly recognized in a slave trade domain nowadays. It might belong to a source domain which is also mapped onto the target domain of salvation. This will be discussed in The coherence among source domains From the examination of the source domain, SLAVE TRADE, it can be said that people who sin are slaves to sin. The salvation is that God, as the one who buys (or redeems) those sinful people back by Jesus blood as the ransom. It is clear that the slave trade is the source domain, and Jesus sacrifice as the salvation is the target domain. Yet, if it is Jesus sacrifice on the cross accomplishes the salvation, why is Jesus blood the payment, but not his life? Although the blood can be seen as the metonymy THE BLOOD FOR THE LIFE, it definitely serves some other purposes. As Lakoff and Johnson (1980) state, metonymy is not arbitrary, the picked representation mean something other than the thing it stands for. Besides, the focusing 97

111 element can reflect the culture value which is grounded in our experiences (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). Therefore, there should be some other messages that we missed previously in the identification of the salvation metaphors. Concerning this question, (6) demonstrates the answer: (6) for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished. (Romans 3: 23-25; emphasis mine) It can be seen from (6) that apparently, there are other source domains in the salvation metaphors. The words justified (from Old French justifiier, submit to court proceedings (12c.)) and forbearance (from forbear (v.)+-ance, originally legal, in reference to enforcement of debt obligations, (1570s)) were originally used as legal terms. The word atonement is from the Israelites traditional ritual in the Old Testament (cp. Exodus 29-30; Leviticus 4-19; Numbers 15, 28-29). In fact, it is a natural result for those sources to be included in the salvation metaphors. The reason comes from two sides: one is the referring of sin; and the other is Jesus crucifixion. 98

112 Since people are sinned, they should be brought to trial in a courtroom as mentioned in the Bible Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment (Hebrews 9:27; emphasis mine). Therefore, the relation between sin and JUDGMENT is at first, tight. On the other hand, the sacrifice of atonement is the way in which God commanded the Israelites to do for their sins to be forgiven. Without doubt, ATONEME becomes the main source (or the symbolism) for sin-forgiveness. Additionally, the reasons for a person to be a slave also connect to the choice of those source domains. As in the Bible, there are basically seven reasons for people to become slaves: people who (a) sell themselves as slaves (cp. Exodus 21:5-6); (b) born to be slaves (cp. Exodus 21:4); (c) are captured from war (cp. Deuteronomy 20:13-14) ; (d) owe money (cp. 2 Kings 4:1) ; (e) are being inherited as the property of slaves (cp. Leviticus 25:46) ; (f) are given as gifts (cp. Genesis 29:24) ; and (g) are punished for crime (cp. Exodus 22:3)9. Those reasons link SLAVE TRADE, JUDGMENT, and ATONEMENT the source domains of salvation metaphors. Especially, (1), (2), and (7) play an important role in tying these source domains. It can be further explained by the two quotes below why the payment should be Jesus blood but not His life. 9 The reference for the sources of slave comes from the subject index (p. 1915) of the Chinese Study Bible which is edited by Prof. Timothy Yu & published by The Rock House Publishers in

113 For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life. Therefore I say to the Israelites, None of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood. (Leviticus 17:11-12) In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. (Hebrews 9:22) As is said, the life of a creature is in the blood, the fluidity of the blood keeps the life of a creature. Also, since blood is the liquid state, it can significantly represents the meaning of washing and cleaning up people s hearts. In the Old Testament, God gives blood to the Israelites as the way to make atonement. The blood for atonement comes from animals (e.g. bull, ram, calf, lamb, goat, etc.) which are without defect as for the sin offering. However, the validity of the atonement is temporary and it should be done again and again whenever people are sinned. In contrast, in the New Testament, Jesus himself becomes the sacrifice of atonement which is the eternal redemption. Notably, the referential metonymy BLOOD carries at least five mappings, for example, BLOOD FOR SACRIFISE, BLOOD FOR SALVATION ( God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his 100

114 blood ), BLOOD FOR LIFE ( For the life of a creature is in the blood ), BLOOD FOR ATONEMENT ( it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life ), and BLOOD FOR FORGIVENESS ( without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness ). For Christians, Jesus blood is the evidence of God s salvation which is also the only condition for their sins to be cleansed and forgiven. It is Jesus sacrifice which signifies the death of people s sinful nature and his Resurrection which brings God s life that achieve the salvation. Therefore, JESUS BLOOD seems to mark the whole scenarios in the target domain of SALVATION. In Section 3.1.3, I have mentioned two of the symbolic metonymies in Christianity, one is the CROSS, and the other is the LAMP. On the one hand, Isaiah (53:7) describes Jesus manner of sacrificing: He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. Since the LAMB can symbolize a sacrifice in an atonement (which is similar as the scapegoat ), LAMB FOR JESUS can therefore be identified. On the other hand, the CROSS can not only symbolize the salvation, but also as a symbol of Christianity. It shows a fact that Jesus crucifixion on the cross is the core issue of Christianity. It is like Jesus BLOOD, the CROSS signifies the effectiveness of salvation. People s guilt and sins are crucified on the cross through Jesus sacrifice. In fact, Jesus BLOOD and the CROSS are the chief 101

115 metonymies which can bring the meaning of saving, e.g., a red cross always symbolizes medical services. That is, the RED color of BLOOD and the CROSS of Jesus compose to refer the whole domain of saving. Although it may be hard to certificate the original meaning of the Red Cross symbol, Jesus CROSS and BLOOD still carry the profound meanings for Christians. Besides, (7)-(9) display a detail portray towards Jesus sacrifice. (7) Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. (Hebrews 7:27; emphasis mine) (8) He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God! For this reason Christ is 102

116 the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance--now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant. (Hebrews 9: 12-15; emphasis mine) (9) Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin. (Hebrews 10:11-18; emphasis mine) Examples (7), (8) and (9) reveal the embedded meaning of salvation. Jesus Christ, as the high priest from heaven, becomes the sacrifice for human sins which is the eternal redemption. Since Jesus has no guilt (cp. Luke 23; John 19), He died for people who sin. His sacrifice can not only clean human sins (i.e. JUSTIFICATION), but it can also substitute the punishment of death for the sinned people. Also, the BLOOD can symbolize relationship and kinship. Thus, the sacrifice of Jesus brings the relationship between God and people, i.e., instead of being slaves to sin, people 103

117 can be God s children. By doing this, the slaves to sin can be set free and be justified. In short, Jesus sacrifice satisfies the condition of God s forgiveness, and the effectiveness is eternal. The metaphor of salvation uses several source domains, e.g., SLAVE TRADE, JUDGMENT, ATONEMENT, etc. which enrich its respective connotations. Besides, it seems that the theological salvation dose not coincidentally match with the events and rituals recorded in the Old Testament. Rather, those source domains are combined and interweaved into a harmonious picture of salvation. It the words of Grady (2007), [t]he systematic projection of elements from one conceptual domain onto elements of another involves not merely the objects and properties characteristic of the domain but also the relations, event, and scenarios that characterize the domain (p. 191). Consequently, the operation of the cognition should be very complex for those sources to be mapped onto the same target in a seamless context. Nevertheless, the shared entailments among those source domains cannot be identified easily. Here, I can only confirm the partial mapping that those different sources make. In sum, firstly, the SLAVE TRADE domain informs the aspect of unfree feeling, the value of the payment, and the changes of the status. Secondly, the JUDGMENT domain specifies people s sinful nature, the result of sin, and the condition to be justified. Thirdly, the ATONEMENT domain highlights the condition of forgiveness, the validity of salvation, and the purpose of Jesus sacrifice. 104

118 Table 1 summarizes the mappings. Nevertheless, those source domains and the focusing topics of salvation metaphors I have mentioned above might be only the tip of the iceberg. Even so, the purpose of the present study is not to find out how many sources that the salvation metaphor employs, but to find out the real goal for adopting those metaphors when talking about the salvation. Next, the analyses will turn the focus to the pragmatic act of salvation and its interaction with the metaphor in Section

119 Table 1 The metaphorical mappings of salvation metaphor Slave trade Salvation buyer God seller none slaves people (sinful nature) reason for being a slave sinned payment: money (ransom) Jesus blood the payment is given to the seller (or creditor) Jesus blood is for saving people from the rule of sin (and which is also for satisfying God s law) the slaves originally belong to the seller (or human sold their spirits to the devil and so they creditor) and should work for him are not free and ruled over by sin slaves can be redeemed if someone pays the people who accept the salvation belong to God money (or ransom) again the benefit for selling a salve: money God s glory can be demonstrated and people can inherit the eternal life of God human s spirit is valuable for God the products (or slaves) are valuable for the buyer Judgment God is justice people who sin should be put to trial all man should face God s judgment after death people should be punished if they are committed people who don t believe in God s salvation and to crime do not confess their sins will perish in the hell people can be forgiven if they expiate their crime people who accept God salvation by faith (and by good deeds confess their sins) can be forgiven Atonement Jesus becomes the atonement people should offer their animals without defect God sent his one and only Son as the atoning as the sin offering sacrifice for human sins the blood of the creatures can sanctify human Jesus blood can cleanse human sins eternally sins temporarily the high priests should offer the atonement for Jesus sacrificed for human sins once for all when his own sin and then for the sins of the people he offered himself again and again 106

120 4.2.2 The pragmatic act of salvation: to save Salvation is the central idea of Christianity, and it is accomplished by Jesus sacrifice and his Resurrection. The word salvation refers to the act of saving, or in religious terms, the saving of the soul (OED, 1989). It is also defined as the deliverance which can save people from a bad situation. The action of saving is firstly performed by Jesus. However, the saving action cannot be explicitly understood since it is not a regular action of saving. In other words, it is not an obvious rescue action which is like someone who is saved by a firefighter from a burning building or by a fisherman from a shipwreck. It is, by contrast, the saving of human souls. Since human souls are not a visible entity, the elaboration and explanation of the saving action can be tough. Still, through the application of metaphors, salvation can be re-performed vividly and therefore it becomes more understandable and acceptable. Section re-visits the ontological metaphors which display the affordance of salvation re-performance. Section reveals the implicit messages in the pragmatic act of salvation by employing pragmatic act theory and Blending theory. As for the interaction between the addressor and addressee, Section examines the testimonies as another way to identify the pragmatic act of saving. Additionally, the analysis will include the discussion towards the interaction among pragmatic contextual elements (e.g. inferencing, establishing 107

121 reference, relevance, voice, metapragmatic joker) for gaining a more comprehensive view (cf. Section and Section 3.4) Ontological metaphors and the affordance of pragmatic act of saving As has mentioned, it is because in the beginning, Adam exchanged his soul with the profit that the devil promises him the knowledge of good and evil his soul and all the human souls are under the dominion of the devil. The Bible states that, the devil s dominion is the power of death (Hebrews 2:14). However, the salvation is an exchange of human souls which can destroy the power of the devil and set people free from the rule of the devil, and it also brings God s attributes to human through the blood of Jesus. In other words, it is the saving of human souls. Nevertheless, since the saving action is not an obvious saving, the discussion towards it is actually afforded by the ontological metaphors. As explained by Lakoff and Johnson (1980), ontological metaphors give a substance to abstract concepts which also allow people to refer, to quantify, and to identify a particular aspect to abstract concepts (p. 26) (cf. Section 3.1.2). In fact, the content of the salvation is also constructed by ontological metaphors. First of all, the SLAVE TRADE gives the soul exchange a substantial reference. That is, when we talk about the exchange of human souls in terms of the trade of slaves (e.g. you were redeemed or You were sold ), the 108

122 discrete entities (i.e. slaves) become the reference for us to understand the transaction. Therefore, the discussion of soul trade is based on the ontological metaphors when we view the souls as the substantial goods in the trading. Secondly, the physical freedom for the slaves is a resource for the spiritual freedom. As has been examined in (1) and is showed here again as in (10), the freedom can be seen as an ontological metaphor which is talked within the affordance of the physical freedom of a slave. Although the unfree state of sinning is not physical, it can be understood and experienced through the ontological reference. Thirdly, the understanding towards sin is also displayed by the physical object, the debt. In Section , there are seven reasons mentioned as for a person to be a slave. The forth reason is that people owe money (cp. 2 Kings 4:1) and the seventh reason is that people are punished for a crime (cp. Exodus 22:3). Both reasons reveal the truth that sin is talked as debt. In other words, everyone who sins is a slave to sin could be explained as everyone who sins owes the debt to sin, and therefore be a slave to sin. It also consists with the parable that Jesus said for the purpose of teaching people the lesson of forgiveness (cp. Matthew 18 :21-35). Since God canceled the debt of his servants and therefore he wants people to forgive others forever. That is, the debt signifies the sin of human. 109

123 (10) Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. (John 8:34-36; emphasis mine) As it is stated by Lakoff & Johnson (1980), [w]e use ontological metaphors to comprehend events, actions, activities, and states. Events and actions are conceptualized metaphorically as objects, activities as substances, state as containers. (p. 30). That is to say, not only the events and activities are comprehended by substantial objects (e.g. slaves, debts), but also the states (e.g. free) are described as containers. In fact, the subject of the salvation souls trade is also afforded by container metaphor. Since our body is a container, there is a natural boundary and territory which therefore create the domination. It can be seen from (11), when we sin, our minds and our spirits are dominated by the darkness. And through salvation, people can be rescued and brought into the kingdom of light and can share in God s inheritance. (11) [G]iving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in the kingdom of light. For he has rescued us from the dominion of 110

124 darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. (Colossians 1:12-14; emphasis mine) The container metaphor provides space for the discussion towards the Christians spiritual life and it also quantifies God s love to human. As (12) tells, when people accept God s salvation, God s spirit will live in people for which people can show God s love to others since God firstly has shown His love to us. (12) This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us. We know that we live in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in him and he in God. And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him. (1 John 4: 10-16; emphasis mine) 111

125 The in-out metaphor instructs the Christians action after they accept the salvation. That is, God is love, and therefore, when He lives in us, we can represent (i.e. out, the overt behavior) the attributes of him and so to love others. This is the essence of the spiritual life that when people know God lives in them and they also live in God. The former (i.e. God lives in people) states that Christians behavior can reflect God s attributes, and the latter (i.e. People lives in God) tells that people can receive God s supply and inheritance. It reflects not merely knowledge, thinking, or an imagination, the ontological metaphor actually reflects on people s actions. It is the soft strength to change people s behavior. Also, it can be seen as a mechanism to switch people s cognition and action at one time because a new thinking can create a new world. It is not redundant; as Lakoff & Johnson (1980) claim, when people conceive of A-domain in terms of B-domain, the way they execute A-domain will also accord to the way they think of B-domain (p.63). In other words, the way they describe A-domain can also represent their cognition towards A-domain and indirectly show the locus of how people apply B-domain to construe A-domain. Although the notion towards ontological metaphor is not like the notion towards those content source domains, it is still a way that people adopt to conceptualize the abstract ideas. The ontological metaphors not only afford the content of salvation but also create 112

126 a new vision and open up a new world. It changes people s cognition and activates people s action as the response to this new frame of thinking. The concept of the heavenly home, the heavenly father and the eternal life are told by virtue of the ontological metaphors. Those metaphors seem to play a major role in the performance of the pragmatic act of salvation. On the one hand, undoubtedly, the meaning of salvation is accounted mostly by structural metaphors (e.g. SLAVE TRADE, JUDGMENT, and ATONEMENT). People s understanding relies on their experiences towards those familiar source domains. On the other hand, ontological metaphors enact a role of activating those meaningful extractions from various source domains. Still, the co-operation of the contextual elements cannot be ignored. Since salvation is identified as the saving action, it is not performed for the one-side purpose (which is like eating or running). The main purpose is to activate people s responses. That is, it makes people see themselves as the one who needs the salvation and who needs to be saved. As the Bible says, people who confess Jesus as Lord and believe the salvation (i.e. that God raise Jesus from the dead) are saved (cp. Romans 10: 9-10). Thus, in addition to those metaphors, the contextual and textual elements should be examined. Those are the inevitable ingredients for the successful performance of the pragmatic act of saving. Next, I will analyze the contextual operation of the pragmatic act of saving and reveal the hidden messages by employing Blending theory. 113

127 The hiding voice: contextual operation and Blending The typical action of saving is neither a speech act nor a pragmatic act. It is a physical action which can be explicitly seen and be appreciated by the one who is saved. The pragmatic act of saving is performed by the illustration of the Bible words. The purpose is clear: to activate people s faith. Nevertheless, the performing work (i.e. successful performance) and people s conception of this pragmatic saving action are both hard for several reasons. Firstly, even though the salvation is an event which has been performed physically by Christ Jesus (on the cross), it is done approximately 2000 years ago. Not all can believe the things that they do not witness by their own eyes. Secondly, the saving action is not a common action but a supernatural action which cannot be identified and understood easily because the saving of human spirits and the promise of eternal life are all invisible. Thirdly, some of the contents in the salvation (e.g. all people are sinned ) cannot be accepted by all people for those sins are objectively defined as merely the immoralities (e.g. sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies (Galatians 5:19-21)). Fourthly, the need to be saved may not be obvious for all people since it is not a physical act of saving but the spiritual saving. Fifthly, the messages might not be received systematically because the illustrations for salvation do not appear in one 114

128 specific chapter in the Bible. Sixthly, there may be some other reasons (e.g. personal background, cultural background) for people to reject the validity of this act. Consequently, the various contextual operations of the pragmatic act of saving can only be examined through the words that it represents, but the real reason, the reason of the successful performance will be quite difficult to identify. The only thing we can make sure is that this pragmatic act of saving is represented by the people who have experienced it by themselves. As for the supernatural part (i.e. God s work), it will not be included in the examination. Besides, for the verses from the Bible are written or recorded by human, the performer of the pragmatic act of saving may not be identified as God. It might be recognized as merely the act of preaching since there is no clear-cut distinction between these two acts. Still, note that the real author of the Bible as have been pointed out, is God (cp. 2 Timothy 3:16-17). For this reason, preaching can be seen as one of the subcategories in the performance of the saving act, but not the major role. The physical saving action and the re-performance of the pragmatic act of saving are both performed by God through different pipelines (i.e. the former is done by Jesus; the latter is done by the Bible s Words). The verses (i.e. (1)-(11)) will be re-examined in this section for the aim of the present study is to clarify the interrelation between social and cognitive aspects of pragmatic act. As physical actions of saving, the goal of the pragmatic act of saving is the same: to be 115

129 appreciated and be accepted. Through the scrutinizing by the angle of pragmatic mechanism (i.e. contextual co-operation), the choice of the contextual elements and its interplay with the accounting function of metaphors can be characterized. It can be seen from (13), (14) and (15) (i.e. the same as (1), (4) and (6)), these verses firstly inform the bad messages that people who sin will lead to a bad result (e.g. has no permanent place in the family, the wages of sin is death and fall short of the glory of God ). In contrast, it follows by the only condition to solve those wicked situations. That is, the salvation: if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed, the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord, and justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished. (13) Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. (John 8:34-36; emphasis mine) (14) For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 6:23; emphasis mine) 116

130 The operation of the adjacent bad-good news shows the pragmatic force of persuading. Especially, in (13), the informing voice of Jesus I tell you the truth makes his utterance more sincere and firm (i.e. a truth telling voice), and this truth may be concerned with everyone (i.e. everyone who sins ). The relevance of this truth is based on the speaker s identity. Jesus addresses his identity (i.e. the Son of God) which affirms the authority to set people free indeed. Similarly, (14) compares the wage with the gift which provides a clear hint for people to make a choice. The persuading voice is embedded in the informative sentence: there are only two choices, one is the death, and the other is the external life. People s inference is helped by the shared situational knowledge (SSK) towards a wage and a gift. That is, a wage is what people should put efforts to get, but a gift is free to gain. The extreme comparison does not seem to provide people a free choice making opportunity, but it foregrounds the only choice that people can make, i.e., to accept God s gift, the eternal life in Christ Jesus. This understanding is reinforced by Inya s (2012) view: the metaphorical polarization has a strong persuasive force (p. 2019). Besides, (13) and (14) signal the bad-to-good transitions by the conjunction, (i.e. but ) which at once comfort the reader. Likewise, (15) uses the perfective (i.e., all have sinned ) and the passive voice (i.e., and are justified ) to show the things that have been done. That is, even 117

131 though people all have sinned, they are justified freely by God. Also, it is because God s grace and His forbearance, people can be justified freely and be committed unpunished. The key point is that this grace should be accepted through the faith in Christ Jesus blood. That is to say, the faith can bring the grace freely. To put it differently, it is not purely the warning-comforting expressions, but the goal is to activate the faith. Specifically, it can be recognized by the repeating indexes (e.g., the Son, in Christ Jesus our Lord, came by Christ Jesus ) that the only way to receive the salvation is through the faith in Christ Jesus. In fact, the referring of Christ Jesus, the Son of God is purposeful. As has been mentioned in Section 3.1.3, God is defined as the Trinity which includes the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The referring of the Son emphasizes God s work of salvation and the condition to be saved. Panther and Thornburg (2007) state that [f]rom a semiotic perspective, metonymy is related to indexicality (p. 242, emphasis original). In other words, those metonymies (i.e. the Son, Christ Jesus ) can index a certification of salvation that Jesus is the only one which can accomplish God s saving. Therefore, it is only with Christ Jesus sacrifice, people can be saved. In other words, this is not only an ACTOR FOR ACTION metonymy, but also the indexicality of the only gateway to be saved. The cognitive effect of these metonymic expressions does not apparently 118

132 requires an extra processing effort i.e., from Jesus to salvation or from the Son to salvation. It helps the performance more effective for a person can raise the whole related attributes and scenarios of an event. (15) for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished. (Romans 3: 23-25; emphasis mine) In brief, by adopting SLAVE TRADE, JUDGMENT, and ATONEMENT as the source domains, example (13)-(15) produce a blended act (cf. Tseng, 2010b) of warning-comforting. The pragmatic force of persuasion is carried by those metaphorical polarizations. It express a message that the only way to receive the salvation is to believe that Jesus is the Son of God who died on the cross for human sins, thus, people can live without the burden of sins (i.e., be set free from the rule of sin). In addition, his Resurrection brings God s life in human for people can glory his name (e.g., demonstrate his justice ) and gain the eternal life in the Heavenly home. Furthermore, (16)-(18) (i.e. the same as (2), (3) and (5)) perform a pragmatic act 119

133 of conditioning. These put the emphases on the value of the offering which indicates that for God, it is the irreplaceable condition. (16) For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. (1 Peter 1:18-19; emphasis mine) (17) No man can redeem the life of another or give to God a ransom for him- the ransom for a life is costly, no payment is ever enough- that he should live on forever and not see decay. (Psalms 49: 6-8; emphasis mine) (18) For this is what the LORD says: You were sold for nothing, and without money you will be redeemed. (Isaiah 52:3; emphasis mine) 120

134 The theme of (16)-(18) is that money can never be the way to save human souls. As have mentioned in , by comparing with silver and gold (which are consider valuable objectively (a SSK)), (16) manifests the value of the blood of Christ. (16) informs the sinful nature by a voice which assumes the addressees already know where the redemption comes from ( For you know that ). The message refers to people s sinful nature (i.e. handed down from the forefathers ) and the only way that is given by the salvation through Jesus Christ s blood. In the same way, the negations in (17) No man and no payment rule out all the other way that people can think of as the atonement (e.g. indulgences). Therefore, it leads people to infer that God s redemption is the only condition to receive salvation. Moreover, the voice in (18) can be identified by the capitalized LORD as it declares God s will. That is, the LORD do not get the price when His children sold themselves to the devil. Thus, it is not with money that people can be bought back as well. Again, the authority of the LORD realizes the achievement of the redemption. The way that God presents for salvation is the sacrifice of His one and only Son. As the LORD declares, the redemption does not rely on any of people s efforts, but God s power. To put it differently, since God gives people the free will, he does not want to force people to make any choices, and this is where the pragmatic act of saving takes place. God use those words to inform, to persuade, to comfort, and to move people s heart. Besides, it 121

135 can also be inferred that what the LORD wants is not the forced love towards him, but the heart that is moved by his love. Altogether, the pragmatic act of conditioning in example (16)-(18) engages ATONEMENT, SLAVE TRADE as the source domains to amplify the value and to state the condition of salvation which, at the same time urges people to accept salvation. In the next set of the verses (19)-(21) (i.e., the same as (7)-(9)), the referential character is obvious. The references towards conventional ATONEMENT and the comparisons between traditional sacrifice and Jesus sacrifice assure people of the effectiveness of salvation. (19) Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. (Hebrews 7:27; emphasis mine) (20) He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly 122

136 clean. How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God! For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance--now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant. (Hebrews 9: 12-15; emphasis mine) (21) Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin. (Hebrews 10:11-18; emphasis mine) Example (19)-(21) are quoted from the Hebrews in the Bible, and these verses present the similar forms. Firstly, they all refer to the role of the high priest in the conventional atonement ceremony (e.g. the other high priests offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people, enter by means 123

137 of the blood of goats and calves, Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties ). Secondly, they compare Jesus sacrifice with the conventional sacrifice (e.g. Unlike the other high priests [h]e sacrificed for their sins once for all, The blood of goats and bulls [h]ow much more, then, will the blood of Christ cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever ). The repeating voice (e.g. day after day, again and again ) and those negations (e.g. unlike, He did not, But when ) reinforce the distinctions between these two comparisons. Notably, there are mainly two practs being performed by employing the metaphor of ATONEMENT and SLAVE TRADE (recognized by the word redemption ): certifying and validating. The references of the conventional atonement (i.e. the sacrifice of animals) function to certify the reforming sacrifice (i.e., the sacrifice of Jesus). The comparisons between the conventional sacrifice and Jesus sacrifice (e.g. day after day vs. once for all ; by means of the blood of goats and calves, vs. by his own blood ; day after day, again and again vs. offered for all time one sacrifice for sins ) quantify the validity of Jesus sacrifice as the salvation. Besides, it also denies the effectiveness of the conventional atonement (e.g. can never take away sins, the sins committed under the first covenant ). Those 124

138 referential comparisons lead people to infer that Jesus sacrifice is effective and valid to sin forgiven while the traditional sacrifice becomes futile. The relevance of these acts (i.e. certifying and validating) is actually afforded by the reference of conventional sacrifice. That is, the conventional sacrifice is a way that God ever commands people as the sin-forgiven atonement. Hence, by referring to it, Jesus sacrifice can be certified and validated as a new and perfect way that God adopts to be a sin-forgiven atonement. In this way, the pragmatic force of activating the faith is strengthened by these comparisons between the referential atonement and God s salvation by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Additionally, the reason of Jesus offering is not for himself, but for all of us, the people who are sinned (e.g. once for all ). On the whole, the differences (i.e., number of times, the purpose, the format, and the validity) between the conventional atonement and the salvation lead to different outcomes and enhance the pragmatic force of activating the faith. Last, people s inference of love can be seen as the key element to reveal the theme of salvation and to achieve the performance of the pragmatic act of saving. The pragmatic act performed by (22)-(24) is showing love. 125

139 (22) Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. (John 8:34-36; emphasis mine) (23) [G]iving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in the kingdom of light. For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. (Colossians 1:12-14; emphasis mine) In (22) (i.e. the same as (1), (10), and (13)), Jesus promised that the slave of sin can be set free if people accept the salvation (i.e. to believe that Jesus is the Son of God and the one who brings the salvation to the world). It states clearly that Jesus is the one who can redeem the slaves back and who can save people from the rule of sin. In addition, the opening of (23) is speaking in a voice as someone who has already received the salvation and so gives the appreciation to God. The present perfects he has rescued us and brought us hint that the salvation has already been done and it will continually work. Yet, there is one thing we have overlooked. That is, the 126

140 typical frame of a slave trade. Commonly, slaves can be sold and bought, or seldom be set free. But, why does Jesus mention a son belongs to it? Additionally, why is in (23), giving thanks to the Father, but not the LORD or the God? How can a slave share in the inheritance while he has no permanent place in the family? Otherwise, the most sophistic question is: Why should the master (i.e., the buyer) sacrifice his one and only son to save the life of a slave to sin? The answer can be inferred: it is nothing, but love. God adopts humans as his son and qualified them to share his inheritance in the Heavenly home is in fact the love action. Obviously, the ADOPTION is not included in the same domain with SLAVE TRADE. It is even not as a matter of course, it is a matter beyond the saving. The real situation is, the Heavenly Father has not only rescued us from the dominion of darkness, but also brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves. In order to get a clearer view, I shall illustrate this point by the Blending theory (Fauconnier & Turner, 2002) as the mechanism which can show a more precise outcome than the two-domains mappings can. The outcome of the Blending is shown in page 129 (see Figure 6). As can be seen from the Blend (i.e. Figure 6), the incompetence in the projections is God s adoption which is embedded in the mappings between SLAVE TRADE and SALVATION. The secret ingredient in the pragmatic act of saving is manifested by 127

141 God s love that he sacrifices his one and only son as the sin offering for saving people from the dominion of darkness (devil) and adopts them as his own children. The embedded metaphor of ADOPTION can be inferred by Jesus referring of family. Beside, God s inheritance also implies the status of the people who are saved. It is because the shared situation knowledge that only the sons in a family can share the inheritance, rather than the slaves. Besides, the polarity of the kingdom of light and the dominion of darkness can activate people s appreciation of the rescuing. More than that, as God brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, the demonstration of God s love to people is revealed. It can also be shown by (24), people are not only bought back by God, but they are also adopted by the Father who sees them as the heir who can share the inheritance in his kingdom. (24) to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons. Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, Abba, Father. So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir. (Galatians 4:5-7; emphasis mine) 128

142 GENERIC SPACE People are bought at a price from one INPUT 1 (SOURCE): SLAVE TRADE dominion to another dominion buyer God slaves All of the human beings Cost: money (or ransom) Jesus life (blood) The payment is for the seller (or for the creditor) Jesus blood is for human sins Slaves belong to the seller (or the creditor) originally Human spirits are not free and are ruled over by sin Slaves belong to the buyer who pays the money Slaves have no INPUT 2 (TARGET): SALVATION People who accept the salvation belong to Jesus (i.e. the permanent place in the family kingdom of light) and are set free from the dominion of sin The Heavenly Father adopts the slaves as His sons who can share the inheritance in the Heavenly realms The buyer/ God Slaves/ People Ransom/ Jesus life (blood) Payment for seller /Jesus blood for human sins Slaves belongs to the creditor/ Human spirits are not free and are ruled over by sin Slaves belongs to the buyer/ People who accept the salvation belong to Jesus and are set free The Heavenly Father adopts the slaves as His sons who can share the inheritance in the Heavenly home Theme: LOVE BLEND Fig. 6. The blend of SALVATION AS SLAVE TRADE 129

143 The full rights of sons informs people s status, while the Spirit of his Son in their hearts implies their behavior, i.e. they should act as the sons of God. Those can be seen as the indexical metonymies of RIGHTS FOR OBLIGATIONS. As people receive the full rights of sons, they should no longer act as slaves but sons. As has been mentioned in Section 3.1.3, the referring of God s Spirit can stand for God s leading and inspiration. Therefore, the Christians regard the voices from God s Spirit as their norms of behavior. The obligations for being God s sons at the same time present an evidence for the people who receive salvation. In other words, people s outer behavior may display the effectiveness of God s salvation. As Section 4.2.1, Example (12) shows, God s love to people can be reflected and represented by those people who accepted the love. Moreover, not only the love of adoption, but also the love of sacrifice is the essence being embedded in the pragmatic act of saving. After all, the significant meaning of the love message is deepened by Apostle Paul, [e]very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. God s love is demonstrated by the Jesus sacrifice (Romans 5:7-8). That is, God s love is embedded in those expressions which describe the sacrifice of Jesus. People can get those messages through the cognitive inference. Besides, the adoption 130

144 not only affects people by emotional factor, but it also establishes the tight connection between human and God. That is to say, the relationship between a servant and a master is markedly much more remote than it between a son and a father. Also, the promise of the inheritance is based on this relationship (i.e., father and son). In the same way, people can represent good deeds because they accept the salvation and the Spirit of God s son in their hearts (cf. Example (12)). In other words, there is no effort made by human (i.e. either the saving or the good behaviors), only their faith. As Paul states, he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. (Romans, 3:26). The activating of faith is therefore strengthened since that is the only act which people should (or can) do in the whole process of the saving act. In short, the love messages (e.g., the love of forgiveness, the love of sacrifice, and the love of adoption, etc.) create the changes of the cognition. In this way, people can be touched, be moved and therefore, be loved. As Colijn (2010) says, [i]f we allow a new metaphor to become part of our conceptual system, it can create a new reality for us by shaping our perceptions and guiding our future actions [n]ew ways of seeing can lead to new ways of living (p.18). The changes of the state are not only the change of the emotions, but the 131

145 change of the whole view, that is, the change of the perception toward this world. By God s salvation, people can be qualified as the sons of God, and so, they can completely rely on God because they believe that God has the perfect plan on their life. By the transformation of cognition, people can enter a whole new world where there is no worry, no abandon, no guilty feeling, no fear and they do not have to rely on their own effort to gain the achievement of life. They are happy, free, hopeful, eased, and feel sure about their future (for they are promised to get the eternal inheritance). As the perception is changed, the attitude, the act and the performance are changed, too. Table 2 summarizes the practs (pragmatic acts) that the addressers perform in the chosen verses (13)-(24). Table 2 The (addressors ) performance of the pragmatic act of saving Act (pract) Contextual elements Metaphors Pragmatic Force warning-comforting (blended act) INF, REF, REL,VCE, SSK, SLAVE TRADE/ JUDGMENT To persuade people to make a right choice M (index/ metonymy) /ATONEMENT conditioning INF, REF, VCE, SSK SLAVE TRADE/ ATONEMENT To urge people to accept salvation certifying, validating INF, REF, REL, VCE ATONEMENT/ SLAVE TRADE To assure people the effectiveness of Jesus sacrifice showing love INF, REF, REL, VCE, SSK, M ADOPTION/ SLAVE TRADE To activate people s love to God (index/ metonymy) 132

146 Yet, the pragmatic act of saving could not be recognized self-evidently. The perception and the inferences from the addressees should be an important indicator to identify the pragmatic force. Also, for a social-cognitive aspect, the examination towards addressees interpretation is as important as addressors meaning construction. I will demonstrate the analyses of the addressees acts in next section Addressor and addressee: to save and to be saved As Mey (2001) mentions, the uptake (p. 211) (i.e. the reaction of the addressee) is an essential indicator of the pragmatic act. If the addressee does not consider the salvation as relevant, there is no effect of the act. That is to say, the affordance of the pragmatic act is co-created by the addressor and the addressee in a given context. In the case of the pragmatic act of saving (cf. Section ), the receiver s positive response is the faith to receive or to accept the salvation. This recognition is similar to Colijn s (2010) view that Biblical images invite us to entertain a way of looking at the world that places Christ at the center. If we respond to their invitation, they will form in us a faith that is more than momentary, and more than poetic (p. 42). Therefore, in order to characterize the relation between the pragmatic force and the addressees inference, I will analyze some testimonies from the people who share their stories about their acceptance of the salvation. Those testimonies were extracted 133

147 from a Chinese Christianity website 水深之處 (shui shen zhi chu, deep water ) (luke54.org). As for the language, the original version of Chinese and my translation of English will both be shown. Nevertheless, although there might be some words that cannot be translated straightforwardly (e.g. zui zhai 罪債, sin-debts ), the meanings of those stories can be captured by the translation. Firstly, (25) clearly demonstrates the process of the inference. (25) 在我小學四年級 我聽了一個改變我一生的故事 一個在兩千年(前)發生的 真實故事 那時在我的小鄉區裡來了一個中年老師 她不知為何 就抓了我 和幾個同學告訴我們 孙宙間有一位神 祂曾經來成為一個人 還清了人 的罪債 為世人的罪釘在十字架上 祂愛世界上的每個人 包括你 你 你 當年老師講故事的畫面 到今天我依然記得 那是年紀小小的我 十分感動 我想這是世界中最讓人感動的故事 怎麼可能一個全能的神願意為卑微的人 來受苦來定死呢 而且還是愛每一個 你 那時我心裡就想這只能說明祂 真是一位神 (In my fourth grade of elementary school, I heard a story that has changed my whole life. That is a true story which happened two thousand years ago. At that time, in our little town, there came a middle-aged teacher. I did not know the reason but she caught me and some of my classmates, and told us, There is a God in the universe, and he has ever come to the world as a human being. He pays off the sin-debts of human, and he is crucified on the cross for human sins. He loves all the people in the world, including you, you, and you. Today, I can still remember the scene when the teacher was telling 134

148 the story. As a little child, I was so touched by the story. I think this is the most touching story in the world. How is it possible that an almighty God is willing to suffer and to be crucified for the lowly human? And he even loves each of you! Since then, I have thought in my mind, This can only show that he is really a God.) (Quoted from emphasis mine) Example (25) is a positive response from an addressee. There are some reasons for the pragmatic act of salvation to be performed successfully. Firstly, the status of the addressor is higher than the addressee since the addressor is the addressee s teacher in elementary school. This can be seen as one of the affordances to affect the pragmatic force. Secondly, the voice of the teacher s expressions seems firm and informative which is also one of the key elements to strengthen the pragmatic force. The messages being addressed are comprehensive and include the existence of God, the history of the salvation, the purpose of the salvation and the love message. Additionally, those are related to everyone (e.g. you, you, and you ). Therefore, the inference from the addressee is expected. The addressee perceives the conflict in the salvation, e.g., How is it possible that an almighty God is willing to suffer and to be crucified for the lowly human? Also, the love message touched her heart (e.g. As a little child, I was so touched by the story ). Thus, her inference activates her faith 135

149 when she states Since then, I have thought in my mind, this can only show that he is really a God. It can be further illustrated that the conflicts in the salvation are the key element to reveal the inference toward God s love and therefore to activate the faith. In (26), the addressee s faith was activated when she read the history about Jesus crucifixion. (26) 高一那一年 那叫人生長的神動工了 主的生命在我裏面變得非常鮮活 以 前常常聽見主如何為我們受死 我都沒有感覺 高一那年的一個晚上 我突 然很想讀聖經 當我讀到約翰福音十九 二十章 那裏說到主受人的審判以 及被釘十字架的過程時 我就哭了 這是我第一次被主的愛感動 小的時候 奶奶所愛的那位神 今天祂也成了我所愛的神 (In my first year of senior high school, the God who enables human to grow started his work. God s life becomes active in me. I usually had no feeling when I heard about how Jesus died for us before. But at one night of that year, I suddenly wanted to read the Bible. When I read John where it describes the process that Jesus was judged and crucified by people, I cried. That is my first time to be touched by God s love. The God whom my grandmother loves when I was little is now the God that I love today.) (Quoted from emphasis mine) In John 19-20, the whole process of the judgment, the crucifixion and the 136

150 Resurrection of Jesus are recorded vividly. As the addressee performed the psychological acts of being touched and crying, and when she inferred those as the love message (e.g. this is my first time to be touched by God s love ), her faith towards the salvation is activated. Notably, in her description, she stated that the message about Jesus death for people was considered irrelevant for her (e.g. I usually had no feeling when I heard about how Jesus died for us before ) until her sudden want of reading the Bible (e.g. But at one night of that year, I suddenly wanted to read the Bible ). That is to say, the relevance of the love message is recognized by her sudden want of reading the Bible. Here, the sudden want is similar to what Wilson and Sperber (2004) call communicative intention (p. 611). It shows that no matter how the addressors consider their utterances (e.g. as ostensive), the addressees willingness of communication and their attention to those utterances are still the decisive point of the relevance towards those. This aspect also reinforces Kecskes (2010a) point regarding the interlocutors egocentrism (cf. Section 3.4). Additionally, as her last sentence implies, The God who my grandmother loves when I was little is now the God that I love today, she becomes a Christian as her grandmother. Although there is no explicit description concerning God s love in the context of Jesus crucifixion, the addressee infers it when reading the story. Again, it can be characterized that one of the key points for the pragmatic force of saving to 137

151 work is the addressee s inference of the love message embedded in the descriptions of the salvation. Relevance is an important factor for the pragmatic act of saving to be performed successfully. As in (27), when the addressee (i.e. the wife) was in a miserable situation, she needed to be delivered from that situation. (27) 妻子在失去我的精神支持下 每一通越洋電話我都聽到她在哭泣 在實驗室 中 妻子成了美國同學眼中奇怪的東方女孩 因為你不能跟她說話 她一開 口就哭 她還能邊看顯微鏡 邊滴下兩排淚珠 就在這時候 一個在附近實 驗室求學的中國女孩 一天拿著福音傳單 怯生生地唸給我太太聽 當她唸 到 有一位救主... 時 我太太像是一個即將溺斃的人 抓到了堅強有 力的臂膀 心中揚起了生存下去的希望 她也就這樣被帶進了教會 隨即在 1997 年的 6 月 29 日受浸 成為基督徒 (When my wife lost my moral support, she cried in every overseas phone call with me. When she was in the lab, she became a wired Chinese girl in the eyes of her American classmates. They cannot talk to her because when she began talking, she began crying. Tears can even roll down her cheek when she was just using a microscope. At that time one day, a Chinese girl who studied in the nearby laboratory, held a gospel leaflet and timidly read it to my wife. When she was reading There is a Savior..., my wife was like a person who is almost drowned but has caught a strong and powerful arm, the hope of survival was raised in her heart. Therefore, she was brought to church, and she was baptized and becomes a Christian in June, 29, 1997.) 138

152 (Quoted from emphasis mine) That is, when the wife lost her husband s moral support, she knew that she needed another spiritual support. Therefore, when the Chinese girl read about the existence of a Savior, her need of being saved was instantly met, and therefore, her faith was activated. As Wilson and Sperber (2004) explain, an input is relevant to an individual when it connects with background information he has available to yield conclusions that matter to him (p. 607). In other words, when people do not consider themselves in need to be saved, the pragmatic force and contextual effect will be weaken or even failing. Thus, only when the addressee considers the pragmatic act of saving as relevant can the pragmatic force work. The issue between relevance and pragmatic force can be further clarified by the demonstration of (28). (28) 教我國文的趙錫民老師 時常在課堂上向我們提起他的信仰 告訴我們主耶 穌如何拯救了他 那時 只覺得老師好像在說一些陳年往事 並沒有什麼感 覺 直到有一次 老師邀我們全班包水餃 又帶我們唱詩歌 那首詩歌的歌 詞是 回家吧 回家吧 不要再流蕩 慈愛天父等你回家 整天在巴望 現在我要回家 永住父身旁 這首詩歌感動了我 想到自己真像一個流蕩 的人 我真羨慕能投身在父神的家裡 就這樣 主適時地拯救了我 在我失 去地上的父親時 我卻得到天上永遠的父 並帶我進入祂永遠的家 139

153 (My Chinese teacher, Xi-Min Zhao always mentioned his faith in the class. He told us how the Lord Jesus saves him. At the time, I only felt as if the teacher was telling some of his old stories, and did not feel anything. It is until the day; the teacher invited us to make dumplings, and leaded us singing the hymn. The lyrics of the hymn are Coming home, coming home, nevermore to roam; Open wide Thine arms of love, Lord, I m coming home Now I m coming home; Lord, I m coming home. The hymn touched me, and I thought I am really like a roaming person, I so yearned to join the Father's home. In this way, the Lord timely saves my life. While I lose my father in this world, I get the eternal Father in heaven, and He brings me into His eternal home.) (Quoted from emphasis mine) As the addressee states, she only considered her teacher s testimony as something like the old stories when he shared his faith to them in the class. However, when she lost her father, the timely need of having a father arises. Besides, she considers herself as the roaming person who is like the one that has been mentioned in the hymn. Hence, the relevance of coming home and having the eternal Father activates her faith. That is to say, the metaphors of the eternal Father and the eternal home may work effectively for those who are lonely and homeless. In addition, the hymn discourse suggests a smooth movement of people s psychological status which may be more relevant than a verbal utterance. Similarly, in Capone s (2001) demonstration, different contexts transform the effect (or force) of acts distinctively. Thus, example 140

154 (28) may suggest that in a hymn discourse, the appeal of love can be performed more effectively. It the same way, in (29), the sense of belonging and the need of being loved activate the addressee s faith. (29) 就在那個暑假 一次小排聚會中 弟兄點了新詩 48 首 愛中牧養 第一 節 祂尋我如同尋找迷羊 祂贖我捨了生命 使我能得祂生命 經歷祂享 受不盡 突然我心裡有一個震撼 好像一道水流衝向我一般 裡面有個東 西填滿了我虛空的心靈 原來主耶穌一直在等我 就算我的生活忙碌 偏離 了主 祂依然在那裏等我回家 我的眼淚不禁流了下來 之前因為社團的關 係與他們感覺有了隔閡 但是就在那場聚會中 我抬頭看著每一位弟兄姊妹 突然感覺好親近 就如同一家人般的親切自然 (At that summer vacation, once, in the small-group meeting, a brother requested New-Hymn No. 48, Shepherding in Love, the first line: Me He sought, a lost and wandering lamb, Me He bought, His life outpoured; I receive His life divine, Know, enjoy Him evermore. Suddenly, I felt shocked like a torrent of water rushing down on me, and there was something filling my empty heart. (I recognized that) Jesus had been waiting for me. Even if my life was busy and I deviated from the Lord, He was still there for me to go home. I can t help but my tears dropped. There was ever a gap between me and others because some problems happened in the student club. But at that meeting, I raised my head and looked at every brother and sister, and suddenly, I felt so closed to them, just like we were the family, so kind and nature.) 141

155 (Quoted from emphasis mine) The form of the addressor in (29) is a hymn again which informs the salvation and the promised eternal life. Specifically, the metaphor being adopted in the hymn is the relationship between a shepherd and a lost lamb. (This metaphor is cited from the Bible, John 10:11 I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. ) As the addressee stated, she was so busy to win people s applauses by holding activities perfectly in the student club; however, she still felt empty and tired. Therefore, the lyrics of the hymn to her are as relevant as when she said that Suddenly, I felt shocked there was something filled my empty heart. Besides, the sense of belongingness is satisfied when she recognized that Jesus had been waiting for me [h]e was still there for me to go home, and also when she felt that she is so close to those people in the church as if they were the real family members. In short, not only relevance, but also the sense of belonging and the needs of being loved can activate people s faith. In fact, those are the universal need for human beings. That is, the warm caring from family and the feeling of being loved are the universal needs which no one would like to reject to have. In other words, even to people who are not in the relevant situation which there may be no need for them to be saved, the need of being loved can still bring up the pragmatic force of salvation (i.e. to activate people s 142

156 faith). In addition, Example (28) and (29) mention the entailments of the ADOPTION: the two addressees both consider themselves as a prodigal son (e.g. I am really like a roaming person, I so yearned to join the Father's home, Even if my life was busy and I deviated from the Lord, He was still there for me to go home ). The ADOPTION metaphor (cf. Section ) identifies God as a Father, and people as His sons (who were originally slaves to sin). This metaphor expresses that people are originally all God s sons, but they sell themselves to sin and get away from God s protection. As Sperber & Wilson (1995) claim, The optimal interpretive expression a thought should give the hearer information about that thought which is relevant enough to be worth processing, and should require as little processing effort as possible (p. 233). Therefore, the frequent referring of ADOPTION may suggest that the domain of family is more relevant (and requires less processing effort) for most of the addressees than other source domains (e.g. atonement, judgment) of salvation. On the other hand, the easy job (i.e. to believe) which people should only do in the whole process of salvation is another factor that strengthens the force of the expected response. (30) 忙碌且充實的召會生活 使得原本抽菸 喝酒 打牌等靠自己戒不掉的惡習 竟輕輕鬆鬆的從身上完全的脫落 從轄制 捆綁中得著完全的釋放與自由 143

157 感謝主 這是何等的救恩 使我的人生有了奇妙的大改變 只因著簡單的相 信 無須掙扎努力 這位孙宙獨一的真神就成為我一生的拯救及幫助 感謝 神的憐憫 至今在我的家族中已有 10 位得救信主了 藉著聖經 我也清 楚知道我從哪裏來 死後要到哪裏去 我不再疑惑 也不再感人生空(虛) 感謝主的憐憫與揀選 豫定我成為祂的兒女 這是一條窄路 也是一條達到 榮耀的道路 我將繼續向前奔跑 直到路終 (The busy and fulfilling church life easily quit my addictive bad habits, e.g., smoking, drinking, playing mah-jong, etc. The church life releases me and sets me free completely from the dominion and the bondage of the darkness. Thanks God, how great the salvation is that my life had a wonderful and big change. Only by the simple faith, but no any struggling and striving, the only true God of the universe has become my Savior and helper in my life. Thanks God for His mercy, so far, there are 10 members being saved by God and become Christians in my family...also, through the Bible, I know where I come from and where to go after death. I no longer wonder, and no longer feel that life is empty. Thanks for the Lord's mercy and His choosing for me to be predestinated as one of His children. (I know) this will be the narrow road, but it is also a way to achieve God s glory. I will continue running forward till the end.) (Quoted from emphasis mine) As shown by (30), the addressee easily quits the addicted bad habits when she becomes a Christian. She is set free completely from the rule of those bad habits which she originally cannot quit easily by herself. The key point is made by the hard 144

158 work of salvation. That is, only God can solve the problem of human sins. In contrast, for the hardest job has been down, the one left on human is only to accept it. As the addressee got this expected inference, she will accept the salvation easily. Besides, the simple faith makes a wonderful and big change of her life also creates an extreme difference between paying and gaining. Finally, the Bible has become her life answer to where she comes from and where she will go after death. Her empty feeling has been filled by the Heavenly Father s love. Therefore, she has a targeted life to go to the heaven. In brief, the pragmatic force is strengthened when the addressee infers that faith is an easiest task in the whole process of the tough salvation. Likewise, Example (31) reveals how hard the salvation is and how easy the faith is. (31) 信主受浸後 感謝主 主也開我屬靈的悟性 使我能明白聖經的話 這位神 實在是孙宙獨一的真神 祂愛我們 甚至親自成為一個人 為我們釘死復活 解決我們罪的問題 叫我們可與神相親 沒有攔阻 甚至還成為賜生命的靈 進到我們的裡面 這些都是白白的恩典 不需要我再 奮鬥 些什麼 只要 我簡單地相信接受 何等的輕省 因為經上說 應當一無罣慮 只要凡事 藉著禱告祈求 將你們所要的告訴神 神那超越人所能理解的平安 必在基 督耶穌裡 保衛你們的心懷意念 一路走來 我與我的先生一同生活在甜美的召會生活裡 雖然從小我的心願 是將來 賺大錢 過好日子 我已得到孙宙的至寶 現在的我 得到的是 真正的富足 145

159 (After I was baptized and become a Christian, thanks the Lord for He opens my spiritual comprehension so I could understand the scriptures in the Bible. This is really the only true God of the universe. He loves us, and He even personally became a man, and was crucified and resurrects for solving the problem of our sins for which we can be intimate with God without any blocking. And He even becomes the life-giving Spirit and goes into our hearts. These are all the free graces which do not require me to strive for something as long as I simply believe, I receive, so free and easy! For it is said: Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. Along the way, my husband and I live together in a sweet church life. Although my childhood wish was to earn a great amount of money and to have a wealthy life!, I have gained the best treasure in the universe. What I get now is the real wealth!) (Quoted from emphasis mine) As the addressee expressed, the love of Jesus sacrifice and the salvation are all the free grace which requires no human effort but only the faith (e.g. These are all the free graces which do not require me to strive for something as long as I simply believe, I receive, so free and easy! ). At last, she describes the faith as the real wealth which indicates the changes of her life goal which she had once held since her childhood (i.e. to earn money and to have wealthy life ). Again, the simple faith brings not only the receiving of salvation, but it also changes people s former 146

160 perception and cognition towards the world. In brief, through people s simple faith, the new frame of the salvation can successfully replace the old frame which people used to have. In this section, some addressees positive responses to salvation have been examined. There are several features can be illustrated. First, as also suggest by Blackwell (2010), the relationship between the interlocutors may influence the pragmatic force and affordance. That is, not only social distance, but also power relationship between interlocutors afford the contextual effect differently (cf. Blackwell, 2010). In (25) and (26), the addressors social status is higher than the addressees (i.e. teacher and student). It makes the utterances towards salvation more credible and therefore enhances the contextual effect and pragmatic force. However, it is not always the case. The addressees communication intention and their willingness of processing the utterance should also be taken into account. The interlocutors egocentrism is one of the necessary factors which can influence the relevance. Thirdly, interlocutors inference of the embedded love is required. That is, the conflict between God s status (i.e. the creator of the world), and His sacrifice (i.e. became a person and be crucified for human sins) implies God s love of human. The inference towards this embedded love may activate more contextual effect than directly saying God loves you. Fourthly, as can be shown by (28) and (29), the hymn discourse in the religious 147

161 context is effective in activating psychological sensing and reasoning. That is to say, although the lyrics of hymns are fixed, the content can be recognized as relevant by some addressees. Also, the melody of hymns can appeal to people more easily than verbal utterances can do. Fifthly, since the sense of belonging and the needs of being loved are universal needs, the referring of the ADOPTION may be more relevant than other source domains of salvation metaphors (e.g. JUDGMENT, ATONEMENT). Besides, as Capone (2005) points out, the norms of certain discourse types constrain the interpretation of an utterance in a given structure (p. 1358). The norm that is adopted in the discourse of the Biblical salvation can be identified as the reader s or the hearer s faith towards it. In other words, people who infer God s love from salvation may already consider the Bible verses or the messages of salvation as real. To put it differently, if people don t believe the existence of God and don t believe salvation as a real event, there is no relevance that makes possible the saving act. Therefore, an expected response from the addressees is in fact based on their believing towards those messages. Therefore, in the whole work of salvation, the only thing people can do is just their simple faith. When people notice the ease of believing, they may therefore believe it and perform their faith in God. In addition, their faith towards God can shape their perceptions and guiding [their] future actions when the new 148

162 frames of metaphorical salvation is accepted (cf. Colijn, 2010, p.18). As has been suggested in Section , the RIGHT to be God s sons is at the same time the OBLIGATION to act as God s sons The interaction of metaphor and pragmatic act Through the demonstrations of metaphor and pragmatic act of salvation, the interaction between these two aspects can be clarified. As I have mentioned in Section , there are six difficulties in constructing the pragmatic act of saving. Those can be seen as the top issues which require the prior treatment. Thus, I would like to discuss these difficulties with the solutions that are provided by metaphors, pragmatic acts, and contextual elements. To make the discussion easier, I have summarized the six problems below, and the corresponding solutions will be demonstrated. a. It may be hard to believe without witnessing the event. b. It s difficult to understand those invisible things (e.g. God, spirit, eternal life, and heaven). c. The sinful nature may not be accepted easily. d. The need of being saved may not be recognized. e. The messages of salvation may not be received comprehensively. f. Others (e.g. personal background, cultural background). 149

163 In Goatly s (1997) proposition, there are some functions of metaphor, e.g., lexical gap-filling, explanation and modeling, reconceptualization, expression of emotional attitude, metaphorical calls to action or problem-solving, etc. (p.166). As for the pragmatic act of saving, metaphors basically function as the mechanism to represent the salvation (i.e. which includes the above functions that Goatly proposed). By adopting slave trade as the main source, the pragmatic act of saving can be re-performed. The scene of a slave trade: a buyer, a seller, a salve, and the trading process can be performed vividly in people s brain. To put it more specifically, the actions being performed in the frame of the slave trade are: 1. Trading action (e.g. buying and selling); 2. Identity transformation (i.e. slave of sin son of God), and 3. Status changes (e.g. darkness light; sadness joy; hopeless the hope in God s kingdom). The dynamic characteristic of this metaphor structure essentially contains actions. By using such metaphors, actions can be represented, and the meaning of salvation can also be revealed when people apply the metaphors to interpret the historical events. In other words, the significance of salvation may not be explained if people do not apply to the metaphorical expressions. The whole frame of metaphorical representation makes the performance of saving more economical than is the case with literal representation. This point is confirmed by what Sperber & Wilson suggest, [a]s always, the element of indirectness in an utterance must be 150

164 offset by some increase in contextual effects (1995, p. 235). In other words, the reason that those pictorial representations are considered more relevant than literal ones is that [t]he speaker will use those linguistic resources which she thinks are most salient to express her communicative intention or/and goals (Kecskes & Zhang, 2009, p.343). Under such assumptions, the pervasive adoptions of metaphors in performing the act of saving prove that those metaphorical representations are more relevant than mere literal representations. Here, I would like to call this kind of metaphor as a frame of dynamic-metaphor. That is, such metaphor creates a scene which contains many actions, and the whole set of the actions can activate people s background knowledge or the memories towards that frame in the brain, and so those actions can be re-performed. Hence, such metaphors can help the abstract actions (e.g. salvation) become vivid. Besides, as Lakoff & Johnson state, The essence of metaphor is understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another (1980, p.5). That is to say, the constructing and the application of one source domain can mean that someone has ever vicariously experienced the target domain by virtue of the source domain. Therefore, even though people do not witness the event by their own eyes, they can experience the salvation by themselves. In addition, metaphor also brings the comprehension towards those abstract idea and nonphysical things. Salvation is a concept which refers to many invisible things 151

165 (e.g. God, spirit, eternal life, and heaven). The application of slave trade metaphor and the ontological metaphors (e.g. personification, container) function to solve this shortcoming (cf. Section ). Besides, since metaphor can characterize the structure of our cognition, our action towards the corresponding perceptions is changed as well (cf. Colijn, 2010). For instance, if people ever know: (a) they are created by God, (b) God is their Heavenly Father, (c) their sins are all forgiven because of the salvation, (d) they have the eternal life and can enjoy the inheritance in the heaven, etc., their life goal and their attitude to things should be totally different. For the life in the world is limited, people s life goal and their vision are also limited by their life-span. In contrast, once when people believe that they have the chance to gain the eternal life in the Heaven, their life goal can be changed since the field of vision is extended from limited to eternal. To put it differently, it is like opening up a whole new vision, the status, the position, the hope, the purpose of life and the life goal, etc., which are all different from the old frame. On the whole, metaphor not only creates a new reality (i.e. cognition) but also activates people s faith (i.e. action) towards God and the Heaven. The sinful nature which is informed by the Bible is another obstacle to people s faith. First of all, those sins which have been mentioned in the Bible may only be considered as the immoralities (e.g. sexual immorality, impurity and 152

166 debauchery ; idolatry and witchcraft ; hatred, jealousy, selfish ambition, etc. (Galatians 5:19-21)). Then, the saying of the handed down sins and the dominion of the devil may also annoy some people for those are like the accusations. Even so, the Bible does not mention sinful nature for the sake of threatening people. As is said in the Bible, For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him (John 3:17). In the same way, it can be seen from the analyses of (13)-(15) in Section , the comforting feature is actually the focus. In other words, even though the Bible mentions the sinful nature, the judgment after death and so on, it does provide the solution (i.e. the salvation) to comfort people as well. Thus, the pragmatic act of persuading is characterized by such adjacent bad-good news constructions. Moreover, the ease of the faith is another factor to release the heavy loading of the sinful nature. The analyses of (30)-(31) in Section have shown that although people are announced as sinned, their sins can be erased when they accept the salvation. That is, their simple faith in Jesus Christ can deliver them from the informed bad situation. As a result, by means of the problem-informing and solution-providing constructions, people s feeling towards the accusation can be pacified and their faith towards the salvation can be activated. On the other hand, since the action saving is a symmetrical action. That is, people should identify themselves as who need to be saved, then, the salvation can be 153

167 formed. For example, it does mean nothing when someone says, I have saved you but no one considers themselves as the referred you. The experiences of being ruled by bad habits, or the burden of the condemnation, the feeling of guilt, etc., are the bridges to receive the saving. Therefore, the informing act of the sinful nature is actually required. For this purpose, the metaphorical expression also acts to create the context for people to fit themselves in. There is much information being informed metaphorically in the context of salvation. Firstly, it is the need for people to be saved. It is for making the addressee to recognize that they are the one who needs to be saved. Secondly, it is the condition of this saving action. The only condition of the salvation is from God, and so, it makes the faith the only way out. Thirdly, it is the meaning of salvation. The value and the effectiveness of salvation are the essence that should be appreciated by people. These informed contents are the indispensable process in achieving the performance of salvation. In particular, metaphorical usages are required in the procedure, i.e., the pragmatic act of informing. On the whole, it can be said that without the application of metaphor, the pragmatic act of saving is hard to be performed. Since the content about salvation is written by several people in separated chapters in the Bible, the cognition may not be constructed comprehensively when people just read some specific parts of the Bible. Thus, the whole story of the 154

168 metaphor may not be identified clearly. In contrast, as it can be seen from the analysis in Section , most of the gospels are recounted. It means that even though people may not understand or actively read the content of salvation in the Bible, the media (e.g. other Christians or Christian hymns) can help to co-perform the action. Those actions which are performed by people (or by hymns) can be seen as the subcategories of the pragmatic act of saving. No matter what forms those are (e.g. speech, singing or the gospel leaflet), when it is performed in the context which conveys the message of salvation, those can be recognized as the act to activate people s faith. Besides, the analysis in Section also indicates that compared with a comprehensive view of salvation, the relevance of the message is more important for the receivers. For instance, in (27), when the addressee only heard the message about a Savior, her faith is activated because that is just what she needed in that moment. Nevertheless, there are still some other factors which may cancel the contextual effects of the relevance. For example, an Indian who grew up in a village where there are all devout Hindus; or, a heart broken wife who just lost her beloved husband who died in a car accident on the way to church, etc. For those people, salvation may be irrelevant. In fact, regardless of personal or cultural factors, there are too many variables which may cancel the contextual effect of the pragmatic act of saving. 155

169 However, there are still some mysterious elements which can resolve such problems. As has been pointed out in Section , the need of being loved should be universal. That is, no one may reject the true love or the hearty caring. In fact, the theme of the salvation is exactly the love message which is that the Heavenly Father sent his one and only son to the world for saving people from the rule of sin, and he adopts human to be his own children for they can enjoy his inheritance eternally in the Heaven. God s love is manifested when Jesus Christ offers himself as the sin offering for human beings while he is the one who committed no sin. Also, God s adoption brings people the sense of belonging for which is also a universal need of human beings. The love messages of the salvation can be summed up by the verse in John 3:16, For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. Hence, even though there may be some gaps (e.g. historical, personal and cultural background) which may cancel the contextual effects of the pragmatic act, the universal needs of being loved will never change, and this is the key force of the pragmatic act of salvation. Nevertheless, this love message may not be all the way straightforward. Rather, it is usually being embedded in the descriptions of the theological constructions. However, the pragmatic force is even more powerful when this love message is revealed by people s inference (i.e. Blending). Besides, the norm of believing is still a factor to 156

170 activate the expected inference towards the embedded love. In sum, the embedded messages of God s love which are intertwined by the pragmatic acts and the collective metaphors play a theme role in successfully performing the pragmatic act of salvation. Table 3 (p. 158) summarizes the intrinsic difficulties in performing the pragmatic act of saving and the solutions that are provided by metaphors and contextual operations. 157

171 Table 3 The contextual operations of the pragmatic act of saving The intrinsic difficulties It may be hard to believe without witnessing the event. It s difficult to understand those invisible things (e.g. God, spirit, eternal life, and heaven). The sinful nature may not be accepted easily. The contextual operations Metaphorical representations re-perform the event vividly which enable people to experience the salvation as if they had seen it. Ontological metaphors offer entities to the abstract concepts and nonphysical things which bring comprehension and change people s perceptions toward a new reality. The informing-comforting operations ease the heavy loading of sinful nature and persuade people to accept salvation. Metaphors of salvation and metaphorical The need of being saved may not be hymns create the contexts for people to fit recognized. themselves into the category of people who need to be saved. Not only Bible, but also Christians and hymns The messages of salvation may not be co-perform the act by delivering the most received comprehensively. salient messages to the addressors which can bring to an optimal relevance. Others (e.g. personal background, cultural background). The universal needs of being loved and the sense of belonging afford to a large relevance to various interlocutors egocentrism. In order to provide an overview of my discussion, I will summarize the analyses in Section

172 The overview: the harmonious cooperation The socio-cognitive analyses of the present study reveal that metaphors play an important role in characterizing and strengthening the pragmatic force. The cognitive shaping power which is embedded in the metaphorical constructions creates the contextual effect and the affordance of the pragmatic acts. In fact, it is a concurring exercise which both composes the content of salvation and performs the pragmatic act of saving at the same time. That is to say, the hidden force of the cognitive framing is the major role in driven the pragmatic acts and the expected responses from the addressees. Also, the dynamic frame of the metaphors help to re-perform the pragmatic act in human s brain and brings the force to activate people s faith. It seems that it is so effective to construct a new frame of perceptions by adopting cognitive operations. Besides, the contextual elements also support the representation of the pragmatic act of saving. In short, the successful performance of the pragmatic act of saving relies on the tremendous joint effort among metaphors, contextual elements and practs (i.e. pragmatic acts). The outline of the harmonious cooperation among contextual elements is shown in Appendix 1 Besides, even though there may be no certain rule for the performing process, in Figure 7, I show a logical procedure that performing the pragmatic act of saving. The four main acts which are performed by the addressors characterize the pragmatic act 159

173 of saving. The fifth act which is the addressee s expected response (i.e. be saved) further completes the whole module. In this case, the metaphors (MPH) are the major method in performing the pragmatic act of saving. Also, the contextual mechanisms (CON) (e.g. tense, reference, indexical, voice) and metonymies (MNY) assist in strengthening the force of the act. In addition, the addressee s inference, referring and the relevance of the acts also draw forth the embedded theme of the pragmatic act of saving which is God s love. Fig. 7 Toward an analysis of the pragmatic act of saving 160