X Never Mind Y: a cognitive approach within the context of complementary alternation constructions

  1. Aneider Iza Erviti 1
  1. 1 Universidad Pública de Navarra
    info

    Universidad Pública de Navarra

    Pamplona, España

    ROR https://ror.org/02z0cah89

Revista:
Cultura, lenguaje y representación = Culture, language and representation: revista de estudios culturales de la Universitat Jaume I = cultural studies journal of Universitat Jaume I

ISSN: 1697-7750

Año de publicación: 2024

Número: 33

Páginas: 177-196

Tipo: Artículo

beta Ver similares en nube de resultados
DOI: 10.6035/CLR.7550 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Cultura, lenguaje y representación = Culture, language and representation: revista de estudios culturales de la Universitat Jaume I = cultural studies journal of Universitat Jaume I

Repositorio institucional: lock_openAcceso abierto Editor

Resumen

Las construcciones de alternancia complementaria son emparejamientos de forma y significado que se utilizan para vincular dos estados de cosas diferentes de manera que el segundo elemento se suma al primero basándose en el juicio subjetivo del hablante, como en No puedo permitirme un coche de lujo, y mucho menos un jet privado. Otras construcciones de esta familia incluyen conectores como much less, never mindy to say nothing of(Iza Erviti, 2015). Cada una de estas configuraciones exhibe una variedad de propiedades de significado distintivas dentro del espectro de la alternancia complementaria. Este estudio sostiene que los diversos significados atribuidos a estas construcciones son el resultado de la activación de diferentes operaciones cognitivas. Para respaldar esta afirmación, este artículo presenta un estudio exhaustivo de la construcción X Never Mind Y, revelando cómo las diferentes operaciones cognitivas subyacentes afectan la naturaleza de las conexiones intratextuales que crea y los efectos de significado que transmite. Además, este artículo aclara por qué esta construcción es aplicable en una amplia variedad de contextos. Estos hallazgos respaldan una clasificación novedosa de las construcciones de alternancia complementaria basada en las operaciones cognitivas involucradas en las construcciones.

€ Ver financiación

Información de financiación

Financiadores

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Baicchi, Annalisa. & Iza Erviti, Aneider (2018). Genre as cognitive construction: An analysis of discourse connectors in academic lectures. Pragmatics & Cognition,25(3):576–601. https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.19006.bai
  • Bender, Emily. M. & Kathol, Andreas (2001). Constructional effects of Just because... doesn’t mean...BLS27:13–25. https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v27i1.1089
  • Brdar, Mario (2015). Metonymic chains and synonymy. Fluminensia,27(2), 83–101.
  • Cappelle, Bert, Dugas, Edwige & Tobin, Vera (2015). An afterthought on let alone Journal of Pragmatics 80:70–85.
  • Croft, William & Cruse, D. Alan (2004). Cognitive linguistics.Retrieved from https://books.google.es/books/about/Cognitive_Linguistics.html?id=I6Z9H-eRSgoC&redir_esc=y
  • Davies, Mark (2004). BYU-BNC. (Based on the British National Corpus from Oxford University Press). Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/bnc/
  • Davies, Mark (2008). Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/
  • Feyaerts, Kurt (2006). Towards a dynamic account of phraseological meaning: Creative variation in headlines and conversational humour. International Journal of English Studies, 6(1):57–84.
  • Fillmore, Charles. J., Kay, Paul. & O’Connor, Mary Catherine (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64(3):501–538. https://doi.org/10.2307/414531
  • Fried, Mirjam (2009). Construction Grammar as a tool for diachronic analysis. Constructions and Frames, 1(2):261–290. https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.1.2.04fri
  • Halliday, Michael A. K. & Matthiessen, Christian (2006). Construing Experience Through Meaning: A Language-Based Approach to Cognition.Bloomsbury.
  • Hannay, Mike., Martínez Caro, Elena. & Mackenzie, J.Lachlan (2014). Besidesas a connective. In M. Gómez González, F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. Gonzálvez-García & A. Downing (Eds.), The Functional Perspective on Language and Discourse: Applications and Implications (pp. 223–242). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.247.12han
  • Hilpert, Martin (2007).Chained metonymies in lexicon and grammar: A cross-linguisticperspective on body-part terms. In G. Radden, K.M. Köpcke, T. Berg, P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of Meaning Construction (pp. 77–98). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/z.136.07hil
  • Iza Erviti, Aneider (2015). Complementary alternation discourse constructions in English: A preliminary study. IJES (International Journal of English Studies)1(1):71–96. https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2015/1/194941
  • Iza Erviti, Aneider (2017a). An exploratory study of complementary contrastive discourse constructions in English. Revista española de lingüística aplicada/Spanish journal of applied linguistics30(1):208–237. https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.30.1.09iza
  • Iza Erviti, Aneider (2017b). The family of English contrast constructions at discourse level. In A. Baicchi & E. Pinelli (Eds.), Cognitive modelling in language and discourse across cultures(pp. 137–152). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
  • Iza Erviti, Aneider (2021). Discourse constructions in English: meaning, form and hierarchies.Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics series. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71680-6
  • Janssen, Theo A.J.M. & Van der Leek, Frederike (2010). The let alone puzzle: a question of orientation. In B. Cappelle & N. Wada (Eds.), Distinctions in English Grammar. Offered to Renaat Declerck (pp. 312-337).Kaitakusha.
  • Kanetani, Masaru (2019). Analogy in construction grammar: The case of Just Because Of X Doesn't Mean Y.In M. Kanetani (Ed.),Causation and Reasoning Constructions (pp.131–145). John Benjamins.
  • Lakoff, George (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. The University of Chicago Press.
  • Lakoff, George., & Johnson, Mark (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought.Basic Books.
  • Lambrecht, Knud (1996). Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents.Cambridge University Press.
  • Lambrecht, Knud(2004). On the interaction of information structure and formal structure in constructions. In M. Fried & J.O. Östman (Eds.), Construction Grammar in a Cross-Language Perspective(pp. 157–199). https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.2.05lam.
  • Linell, Per (2009). Grammatical constructions in dialogue. In A. Bergs & G. Diewald (Eds.), Contexts and Constructions(pp. 97–110). https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.9.05lin
  • Michaelis, Laura A. & Lambrecht, Knud (1996). Toward a construction-based theory of language function: The case of nominal extraposition. Language, 72(2):215–247. https://doi.org/10.2307/416650
  • Noordman, Leo (2001). On the production of causal-contrastive although-sentences in context. In T. J. M. Sanders, J. Schilperoord & W. Spooren (Eds.), Text representation: Linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects(pp. 153-180). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.8.09noo
  • Östman, Jan-Ola (1999). Coherence through understanding through discourse patterns: Focus on news reports. In W. Bublitz, U. Lenk, & E. Ventola (Eds.),Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse: How to create it and how to describe it(pp. 77–100). https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.63.08ost
  • Östman, Jan-Ola (2005). Construction Discourse. In Construction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions (pp. 121–144). John Benjamins.
  • Östman, Jan-Ola. & Fried, Mirjam (2005). The Cognitive grounding of Constructional Grammar. In Construction Grammars(pp. 1–13). https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.3.01ost
  • Panther, Klaus Uwe & Thornburg, Linda (2003). The effect for cause metonymy in English grammar. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective(pp. 215–232). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110894677.215
  • Quirk, Randolph;Greenbaum, Sidney;Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan (Eds.) (1991). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language.Longman. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100006549
  • Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, FranciscoJ. (2008). Cross-linguistic analysis, secondlanguage teaching and cognitive semantics: The case of Spanish diminutives andreflexive constructions. In S. De Knop & T. D. Rycker (Eds.), Cognitive Approaches to Pedagogical Grammar: Volume in honor of René Dirven (pp.121–152). Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110205381.2.121
  • Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco J. (2011). Metonymy and cognitive operations. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a consensus view(Cognitive Processing 28) (pp. 103–124). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.28.06rui
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco. J. (2017). Metaphor and other cognitive operations in interaction: from basicity to complexity. In B. Hampe (Ed.), Metaphor: Embodied cognition and discourse, (pp. 138–159). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108182324.009
  • Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco J. & Galera, Alicia (2014). Cognitive modeling: A linguistic perspective. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.45
  • Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco J. & Gómez-González, Mª de los Ángeles (2014). Constructing discourse and discourse constructions. In M. de los Á. Gómez-González, F. J. Ruiz De Mendoza Ibáñez, & F. Gonzálvez-García (Eds.), Theory and Practice in Functional-Cognitive Space(pp. 295–314). John Benjamins.
  • Sawada, Osamu (2003). Rethinking the let aloneconstruction: what are its construction specific characteristics? Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics 7(1):135–151.
  • Toosarvandani, Maziar (2008a). Letting negative polarity alone for let alone. In T. Friedman & S. Ito (Eds.), Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory XVIII. CLC Publications(pp. 729–746). Ithaca.
  • Toosarvandani, Maziar. (2008b). Scalar reasoning and the semantics of let alone. Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society,44(2):51–64.
  • Toosarvandani, Maziar (2009). The relevance of focus: the case of let alone reopened. UMOP,39:105–123.
  • Wan, Wen & Wu, Xue (2022). A corpus-based analysis of the concessive construction just because X doesn't mean Y. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies,40(4):381–396. https://doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2022.2070509
  • WebCorp: The Web as Corpus. Available online at http://www.webcorp.org.uk/live/
  • Wide, Camilla (2009). Interactional construction grammar. In A. Bergs & G. Diewald (Eds.), Contexts and Constructions(pp. 111–142). https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.9.06wid
  • Wilson, Deirdre. & Sperber, Dan (2012). Meaning and relevance. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139028370
  • Zaika, Natalia M. (2022). Causation and reasoning constructions. Sibirskii Filologicheskii Zhurnal,1:340–344.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet