Complementary alternation discourse constructions in EnglishA preliminary study

  1. Iza Erviti, Aneider 1
  1. 1 Universidad de La Rioja
    info

    Universidad de La Rioja

    Logroño, España

    ROR https://ror.org/0553yr311

Zeitschrift:
IJES: international journal of English studies

ISSN: 1578-7044

Datum der Publikation: 2015

Titel der Ausgabe: Open Issue

Ausgabe: 15

Nummer: 1

Seiten: 71-96

Art: Artikel

DOI: 10.6018/IJES/2015/1/194941 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Andere Publikationen in: IJES: international journal of English studies

Institutionelles Repository: lock_openOpen Access Editor

Zusammenfassung

This paper examines the essential features of a group of constructions that belong to the family of complementary alternation discourse constructions in English. In this group of constructions, X and Y are two situations such that Y is less likely (or more likely) to happen than X. Each member of this group (X Let Alone Y, X Much Less Y, X Never Mind Y, X Not To Mention Y, Not X Nor Y, X Still Less Y, Not X Not Even Y, and X To Say Nothing of Y) introduces subtle changes in focal structure, resulting in changes on the overall coherence of the text. Based on these theoretical explanations, the paper specifies the conditions for the use of one connector with preference over the others. Finally, the paper argues that in these constructions we find two types of cognitive operations at work: simple cognitive operations (negative addition and/or re-association) and operation amalgams, which combine different cognitive operations.

Bibliographische Referenzen

  • Baicchi, A. (2011). Metaphoric motivation in grammatical structure: The caused-motion construction from the perspective of the Lexical-Constructional Model. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Motivation in Grammar and the Lexicon (pp. 149-170). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Baicchi, A. & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2010). The cognitive grounding of illocutionary constructions within the theoretical perspective of the Lexical-Constructional Model. Textus: English Studies in Italy 23(3), 543–563.
  • Bencini, G. & Goldberg, A. (2000). The contribution of argument structure constructions to sentence meaning. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 640–651.
  • Bender, E. M. & Kathol, A. (2001). Constructional Effects of Just Because ... Doesn't Mean ... BLS, 27, 13–25.
  • Butler, C. S. (2009). The Lexical Constructional Model: Genesis, strengths and challenges. In C. S. Butler & J. M. Arista (Eds.), Deconstructing Constructions (pp. 117–152). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Butler, C. S. (2013). Constructions in the Lexical Constructional Model. In E. Diedrichsen, E. & B. Nolan (Eds.), Linking Constructions into Functional Linguistics: The Role of Constructions in RRG Grammars (Studies in Language Series) (pp. 271–294). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary. (1990). London: Collins.
  • Del Campo, N. (2011). Cognitive modelling in illocutionary meaning. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9(2), 392–412.
  • Del Campo, N. (2013). Illocutionary Constructions in English: Cognitive Motivation and Linguistic Realization. Bern: Peter Lang.
  • Eddington, D. & Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J. (2010). Argument constructions and language processing: Evidence from a priming experiment and pedagogical implications. In S. De Knop, F. Boers & T. De Rycker (Eds.), Fostering Language Teaching Efficiency through Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 213–238). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Fillmore, C., P. Kay, P. & O'Connor, C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64, 501–538.
  • Galera, A. & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2012). Lexical class and perspectivization constraints on subsumption in the Lexical Constructional Model: The case of say verbs in English. Language Sciences, 34, 54–64.
  • Gibbs, R. W. (2006). Embodiment and Cognitive Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Gibbs, R. W. (2011). Evaluating conceptual metaphor theory. Discourse Processes, 48(8), 529–562.
  • Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Goldberg, A. (1998). Patterns of experience in patterns of language. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The New Psychology of Language. Vol. 1 (pp. 203–219). Mahwah, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at Work. The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Goldberg A. & Bencini, G. M. L. (2005). Support from processing for a constructional approach to grammar. In A. Tyler, M. Takada, Y. Kim & D. Marinova (Eds.), Language in Use: Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives on Language and Language Learning (pp. 3-18). Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
  • Goldberg, A. & Jackendoff, R. (2004). The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language, 80(3), 532–568.
  • Gonzálvez-García, F. (2009). The family of object-related depictives in English and Spanish: Towards a usage-based, constructionist analysis. Language Sciences, 31(5), 663-723.
  • Gonzálvez-García, F. (2012). Metaphor and metonymy do not render coercion superfluous: Evidence from the subjective-transitive construction. Linguistics, 49(6), 1305-1358.
  • Kay P. (2002). An informal sketch of a formal architecture for Construction Grammar. Grammars, 5, 1–19.
  • Kay, P. & Fillmore, C. J. (1999). Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X doing Y? construction. Language, 75(1), 1-33.
  • Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh. New York: Basic Books.
  • Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites; Vol. 2: Descriptive Application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  • Langacker, R. W. (1999). Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Langacker, R.W. (2005). Construction Grammars: Cognitive, radical and less so. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez & S. Peña Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 101–159). Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Mairal Usón, R. & Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J. (2009). Levels of description and explanation in meaning construction. In Ch. Butler & J. Martín Arista (Eds.) Deconstructing Constructions (pp. 153– 198). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Peña, S. (2009). Constraints on subsumption in the caused-motion construction. Language Sciences, 31, 740–765.
  • Pérez, L. & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2011). A Lexical-Constructional Model account of illocution. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics 8, 99–138.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2011). Metonymy and cognitive operations. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining Metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics. Towards a consensus view (pp. 103–123). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2013). Meaning construction, meaning interpretation and formal expression in the Lexical Constructional Model. In E. Diedrichsen & B. Nolan (Eds.), Linking Constructions into Functional Linguistics: The Role of Constructions in RRG Grammars (pp. 231–270). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2014). Mapping concepts: Understanding figurative thought from a cognitivelinguistic perspective. Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics 27(1), 187–207.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. & Baicchi, A. (2007). Illocutionary constructions: Cognitive motivation and linguistic realization. In I. Kecskes & L. Horn (Eds.), Explorations in Pragmatics: Linguistic, Cognitive, and Intercultural Aspects (pp. 95–128). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. & Galera, A. (2014). Cognitive Modeling. A Linguistic Perspective. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. & Gómez González, M.A. (2014). Constructing discourse and discourse constructions. In Gómez González, M. A., Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., Gonzálvez-García, F., Downing, A. (Eds.), Theory and Practice in Functional-Cognitive Space (295–314). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. & Gonzálvez-García, F. (2011). Constructional integration in the Lexical Constructional Model. British and American Studies, 17, 75–95.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. & Mairal Usón, R. (2008). Levels of description and constraining factors in meaning construction: An introduction to the Lexical Constructional Model. Folia Linguistica Acta Societatis Linguisticae Europaea, 42(2), 355–400.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. & Mairal Usón, R. (2011). Constraints on syntactic alternation: Lexicalconstructional subsumption in the Lexical Constructional Model. In P. Guerrero (Ed.), Morphosyntactic Alternations in English: Functional and Cognitive Perspectives (pp. 62–82). Equinox Publishing Books.
  • Taylor, J. (1995). Linguistic categorization. (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet