An exploratory study of complementary contrastive discourse constructions in English

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

    Universidad de La Rioja

    Logroño, España

    ROR https://ror.org/0553yr311

Zeitschrift:
Revista española de lingüística aplicada

ISSN: 0213-2028

Datum der Publikation: 2017

Ausgabe: 30

Nummer: 1

Seiten: 208-237

Art: Artikel

beta Ver similares en nube de resultados
DOI: 10.1075/RESLA.30.1.09IZA DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR

Andere Publikationen in: Revista española de lingüística aplicada

Ziele für nachhaltige Entwicklung

Zusammenfassung

This paper studies the fundamental characteristics of a subgroup of members of the family of complementary-contrastive discourse constructions in English. Following Ruiz de Mendoza and Gómez-González (2014) by discourse constructions this article refers to form-meaning pairings capturing relational meaning such as addition, exemplification, contrast, etc. grounded in high-level cognitive models. A discourse construction (e.g., X Let Alone Y; cf. Fillmore, Kay, & O’Connor, 1988), generally consists of a fixed part and two variables, where the fixed part is a connector (a discourse marker or a conjunction). The constructions under scrutiny indicate a relation between two elements or situations in the world that are opposites but not exclusive of each other. Many of the members of this constructional family have frequently been treated as fully interchangeable in standard lexicographic practice. By contrast, this paper argues that each of these constructions introduces small but decisive changes in focal structure, resulting in important differences in meaning. Taking this evidence into account, the paper specifies the cases where one construction is used with preference over the others.

Bibliographische Referenzen

  • Bach, K. (1994). Conversational impliciture. Mind & Language, 9(2), 124–162. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0017.1994.tb00220.x
  • Baicchi, A., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2010). The cognitive grounding of illocutionary constructions within the theoritecal perspective of the Lexical Constructional Model. Textus: English Studies in Italy, 3, 543–563.
  • Blakemore, D. (2002). Relevance and linguistic meaning : The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511486456
  • Butler, C. S., & Gonzálvez-García, F. (2014). Exploring functional-cognitive space. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.157
  • Del Campo, N. (2011). Cognitive modelling in illocutionary meaning. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9(2), 392–412. doi: 10.1075/rcl.9.2.03del
  • Del Campo, N. (2013). Illocutionary constructions in English : Cognitive motivation and linguistic realization. Bern: Peter Lang.
  • Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 64(3), 501–538. doi: 10.2307/414531
  • Fraser, B. (2006). Towards a theory of discourse markers. In K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to discourse particles (pp. 189–204). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  • Fraser, B. (2010). The sequencing of contrastive discourse markers in English. Baltic Journal of the English Language, Literature and Culture, 1, 29–35.
  • Galera, A., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2014). Cognitive modeling: A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/resla.28.1.16bai
  • Goldberg, A. E., & Jackendoff, R. (2004). The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language, 80(3), 532–568. doi: 10.1353/lan.2004.0129
  • Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic : The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
  • Hannay, M., Martínez Caro, E., & Mackenzie, J. L. (2014). Besides as a connective. In M. de los Á. Gómez González, F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. Gonzálvez-García, & A. Downing (Eds.), The functional perspective on language and discourse: Applications and implications (pp. 223–242). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.247.12han
  • Iza Erviti, A. (2015). Complementary alternation discourse constructions in English: A preliminary study. IJES (International Journal of English Studies), 1, 71–96. Retrieved from doi: 10.6018/ijes/2015/1/194941
  • Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013
  • Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  • Langacker, R. W. (1999). Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110800524
  • Mairal, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2009). Levels of description and explanation in meaning construction. In C. S. Butler & J. Martín Arista (Eds.), Deconstructing constructions (pp. 153–198). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.107.08lev
  • Panther, K. U., & Thornburg, L. (2000). The effect for cause metonymy in English grammar. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads. A cognitive perspective (pp. 215–231). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Pérez Hernández, L. (2001). The directive-commissive continuum. Miscelánea: A Journal of English and American Studies, 23, 77–98.
  • Pérez Hernández, L. (2009). Análisis léxico-construccional de los verbos de habla. A lexical-constructional analysis of verbs of speech. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a La Comunicación, 40, 62–92.
  • Pérez Hernández, L. (2012). Saying something for a particular purpose: Constructional compatibility and constructional families. RESLA (Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada), 25, 189–210.
  • Pérez Hernández, L. (2013). Illocutionary constructions: (multiple source)-in-target metonymies, illocutionary ICMs, and specification links. Language & Communication, 33(2), 128– 149. doi: 10.1016/j.langcom.2013.02.001
  • 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., & Gómez-González, M. A. (2014). Constructing discourse and discourse constructions Francisco. In M. A. Gómez-González, F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza, & F. GonzálvezGarcía (Eds.), Theory and practice in runctional-cognitive space (pp. 295–314). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sfsl.68.13rui
  • Schiffin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511611841
  • Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance : Communication and cognition (2nd edition). Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Stefanowitsch, A. (2003). A construction-based approach to indirect speech acts. In K. -U. Panther & L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (pp. 105–126). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.113.09ste
  • The British national corpus, version 3 (BNC XML Edition). 2007. Distributed by Oxford University Computing Services on behalf of the BNC Consortium. URL: http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet