Discourse markers in the lexical constructional modelthe case of the 'so what x' construction
ISSN: 1886-2438
Año de publicación: 2011
Número: 6
Páginas: 151-164
Tipo: Artículo
beta Ver similares en nube de resultadosOtras publicaciones en: Revista de lingüística y lenguas aplicadas
Objetivos de desarrollo sostenible
Resumen
This article argues for an alternative analysis of discourse markers to that proposed within relevance-theoretic approaches, which attribute procedural (as opposed to conceptual) meaning to these words. This study provides a new perspective that brings together the main contributions of Relevance Theory (RT) and those that arise from the Lexical Constructional Model (LCM), thus shedding light on the role of discourse markers within sentence meaning. Rather than offering procedural information, discourse markers activate high-level conceptual mechanisms that help the hearer in his/her choice of the most appropriate interpretation of utterances. Furthermore, the present paper provides a fully-fledged analysis of discourse markers and their contribution to implicated meaning, filling the gaps observable in relevancetheoretic views. Specifically, So and and have been found to be determinant elements in the creation of a new construction, the So Wh- X? construction, which explains the uncompromising importance of discourse markers in utterance interpretation.
Referencias bibliográficas
- Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
- Blakemore, D. (2002). Relevance and Linguistic Meaning. The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Blakemore, D. (2003). “Re-visiting procedural meaning: ‘but’, ‘however’ & ‘nevertheless’”, Paper delivered at Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics (GURT 2003).
- Blakemore, D. (2007) “Constraints, concepts and procedural encoding”, in N. Burton-Roberts (ed.) Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 45-66.
- Dik, S. C. (1997a). The Theory of Functional Grammar, Part 1: The structure of the clause. Kees Hengeveld (Ed.), Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
- Dik, S. C. (1997b). The Theory of Functional Grammar, Part 2: Complex and derived constructions. Kees Hengeveld (Ed.). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
- Goldberg, A. (1995). A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Goldberg, A. (2003). “Constructions: Anew theoretical approach to language.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7-5: 219-224.
- Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at Work: the nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Gonzálvez García, F. (2009). “The family of object-related depictives in English and Spanish: First steps towards a constructionist, usage-based analysis”, Language Sciences 31: 663–723.
- Grice, H.P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
- Kay, P. & Fillmore, C.J. (1999). “Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The ‘What’s X doing Y’ construction”, Language 75: 1-33.
- Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Langacker, R.W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1, Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
- Langacker, R.W. (1999). Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin/New York, Mouton de Gruyter.
- Mairal Usón, R. & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F.J. (2009). “Levels of description and explanation in meaning construction”, in C. S. Butler & J. Martín (eds.) Deconstructing Constructions. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins: 153-198.
- Otal Campo, J.L., and Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F.J. (2007). “Modelling thought in language use: at the crossroads between discourse, pragmatics, and cognition”, Jezikoslovlje 8-2: 115-167.
- Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F.J. (1999). Introducción a la teoría cognitiva de la metonimia. Granada: Granada Lingüística y Método Ediciones.
- Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F.J. (2007). “High-level cognitive models: in search of a unified framework for inferential and grammatical behavior”, in K. Kosecki (ed.) Perspectives on Metonymy. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang, 11-30.
- Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F.J. and Luzondo, A. (2009). “Lexical-constructional subsumption in resultative constructions in English”, in M. Brdar, M. Zic, I. Raffaelli, M.-M. Stanojevic, N. Tudjman Vukovic (eds.) Cognitive Linguistics. Between Universality and Variation. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
- Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F.J. and Mairal Usón, R. (Forthcoming). “Lexical representation and constructions: bridging the gap between the constructional and process models of grammar”, in M. Carretero et al. (eds.) A Pleasure of Life in Words. A Festschrift for Angela Downing, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 107-134.
- Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J. and Mairal Usón, R. (2007). “High-level metaphor and metonymy in meaning construction”, in G. Radden, K. Köpcke, M.T. Berg & P. Siemund (eds.) Aspects of Meaning Construction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 33-51.
- Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F.J. & Mairal Usón, R. (2008). “Levels of description and constraining factors in meaning construction: An introduction to the Lexical Constructional Model”, Folia Linguistica 42-2: 355-400.
- Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F.J. & Mairal Usón, R. (in press). “Constraints on syntactic alternation: lexical-constructional subsumption in the Lexical-Constructional Model”, in P. Guerrero (ed.) Morphosyntactic Alternations in English. Functional and Cognitive Perspectives. Equinox.
- Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance. Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
- Van Valin, R.D. Jr. (2005). The syntax-semantics interface: An introduction to Role and Reference Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Wilson, D. and Sperber, D. (1993). “Linguistic form and relevance”, Lingua 90: 1-25.