1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Cognitive Linguistic Studies
  4. Volume 7, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 7, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2213-8722
  • E-ISSN: 2213-8730
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The present study explores the viewpointing function of word order inversion and associated stylistic strategies across languages, comparing English-Chinese multiple parallel texts as illustration. In particular, I investigate whether the cognitive strategy of inverting the word order to create a subjective construal is similar in both languages, to what extent, and if the languages differ, what systematic contingency plans there are. To answer the question, I examined selected excerpts with inversion written in English and their multiple translations in Mandarin Chinese, to see how the subjective construals in the English originals are rendered. I find that in addition to inversion, the English samples exhibit a zoom-in effect through use of punctuation, the participial clause, and an ad hoc schema of [] – [X] with the middle three instantiations sharing an identical phonological schema. The identical phonological schema and the shared narrative viewpoint makes the three instantiations iconic. In comparison, the Chinese renditions employ the presentative construction and a focus particle to approximate the character-based viewpoint, but the zoom-in effect is not present in any of the Chinese versions. Another important difference is the generally longer iconic part in the Chinese versions, due to the productivity of four-character templates at the phonological pole in Mandarin Chinese.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00060.lu
2020-10-01
2023-09-29

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00060.lu
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Barlow, M., & Kemmer, S.
    (eds.) (2000) Usage-based models of language. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Biq, Y.-O.
    (1988) From focus in proposition to focus in speech situation: CAI and JIU in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Chinese Linguistics16, 72–108.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Boas, H. C.
    (ed.) (2010) Contrastive studies in construction grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.10
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.10 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bolinger, D.
    (1977) Meaning and form. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Boulin, M.
    (2017) Now and xianzai: A contrastive study of two deictic adverbs. Languages in Contrast17(1), 1–17. 10.1075/lic.17.1.01bou
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.17.1.01bou [Google Scholar]
  6. Brône, G. & Vandaele, J.
    (2009) Cognitive poetics. Goals, gains and gaps. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110213379
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110213379 [Google Scholar]
  7. Chafe, W. L.
    (1992) Immediacy and displacement in consciousness and language. InD. Stein (ed.), Cooperating with written texts: The pragmatics and comprehension of written texts (pp.231–255). Berlin: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110881196.231
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110881196.231 [Google Scholar]
  8. (1994) Discourse, consciousness, and time. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Chen, R.
    (2003) English inversion. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110895100
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110895100 [Google Scholar]
  10. Crespo-Fernández, E.
    (2013) Euphemistic metaphors in English and Spanish epitaphs: A comparative study. Atlantis35(2), 99–118.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Croft, W.
    (2001) Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  12. Dancygier, B.
    (2012) The language of stories: A cognitive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Dancygier, B., Lu, W. & Verhagen, A.
    (eds.) (2016) Viewpoint and the fabric of meaning: Form and use of viewpoint tools across languages and modalities. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110365467
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110365467 [Google Scholar]
  14. Dancygier, B. & Vandelanotte, L.
    (eds.) (2017) Viewpoint phenomena in multimodal communication. Special issue ofCognitive Linguistics28(3).
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Dorgeloh, H.
    (1997) Inversion in Modern English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.6
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.6 [Google Scholar]
  16. Drubig, H. B.
    (1988) On the discourse function of subject verb inversion. InJ. K. D. Nehls (ed.), Essays on the English language and applied linguistics on the occasion of Gerhard Nickel’s 60th birthday (pp.83–95). Heidelberg: Julius Groos Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Fauconnier, G.
    (1997) Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139174220
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139174220 [Google Scholar]
  18. Fludernik, M.
    (1993) The fictions of language and the languages of fiction. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Gavins, J. & Steen, G.
    (2003) Cognitive poetics in practice. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203417737
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203417737 [Google Scholar]
  20. Geeraerts, D.
    (2016) Grammar in the context of intersubjective usage. Nederlandse Taalkunde21(3), 395–407. 10.5117/NEDTAA2016.3.GEER
     https://doi.org/10.5117/NEDTAA2016.3.GEER [Google Scholar]
  21. Givón, T.
    (1985) Iconicity, isomorphism and non-arbitrary coding in syntax. InJ. Haiman (ed.), Iconicity in syntax (pp.187–219). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.6.10giv
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.6.10giv [Google Scholar]
  22. Harrison, C., Nuttall, L., Stockwell, P. & Yuan, W.
    (eds.) (2014) Cognitive Grammar in literature. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lal.17
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lal.17 [Google Scholar]
  23. Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G. K.
    (2002) The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316423530
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530 [Google Scholar]
  24. Knotková, M. & Lu, W.
    (2020) Rendering, generalization and variation: On the use of multiple parallel texts as a comparative method in cognitive poetics. Cognitive Linguistics Studies7(1), 201–221. 10.1075/cogls.00054.kno
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00054.kno [Google Scholar]
  25. Kövecses, Z.
    (2010) Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. van Krieken, K., Sanders, J. & Sweetser, E.
    (eds.) (2019) Time and viewpoint in narrative discourse. Special issue ofCognitive Linguistics30(2).
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Kuno, S.
    (1987) Functional syntax: Anaphora, discourse, and empathy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Lai, H.
    (1999) Rejected expectations: The scalar particles cai and jiu in Mandarin Chinese. Linguistics37(4), 625–661. 10.1515/ling.37.4.625
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.37.4.625 [Google Scholar]
  29. Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Lakoff, G. & Turner, M.
    (1989) More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226470986.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226470986.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  31. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Vol I. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. (1990) Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics1(1), 5–38. 10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.5
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.5 [Google Scholar]
  33. (2008) Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  34. Li, C. N. & Thomson, S. A.
    (1976) Subject and topic: a new typology of language. InC. N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic (pp.457–489). New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. (1981) Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Lu, W. & Verhagen, A.
    (2016) Shifting viewpoints: How does that actually work across languages? An exercise in parallel text analysis. InB. Dancygier, W. Lu & A. Verhagen (eds.), Viewpoint and the fabric of meaning: Form and use of viewpoint tools across languages and modalities (pp.169–190). Boston/Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110365467‑008
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110365467-008 [Google Scholar]
  37. Lu, W., Verhagen, A. & Su, I.
    (2018) A Multiple-Parallel-Text approach for viewpoint research across languages: The case of demonstratives in English and Chinese. InS. Csábi (ed.), Expressive Minds and Artistic Creations, (pp.131–157). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Lu, W., Shurma, S. & Kemmer, S.
    (2020) Delivering the unconventional across languages: A Cognitive Grammar analysis of nonce words in “Jabberwocky” and its Ukrainian renditions. Review of Cognitive Linguistics18(1), 244–274. 10.1075/rcl.00058.lu
     https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00058.lu [Google Scholar]
  39. Lu, W.
    (2018) A Cognitive Grammar approach to leadership rhetoric: Schemata and categories in “I Have a Dream”. InC. Haase & A. Schröder (eds.), Analogy, copy, and representation: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp.47–55). Bielefeld: Aisthesis Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. (2019) Time, tense and viewpoint shift across languages: A Multiple-Parallel-Text approach to “tense shifting” in a tenseless language. Cognitive Linguistics30(2), 377–397. 10.1515/cog‑2018‑0039
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2018-0039 [Google Scholar]
  41. Lü, S. 呂叔湘
    (1979) Hanyu yufa fenxi wenti漢語語法分析問題 [Analysis of issues in Mandarin grammar]. Beijing: Commercial Press 商務印書館.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Lukl, J.
    (This issue). The role of emphatic italics in the information structure of a prose text as seen from the point of view of functional sentence perspective and the prosody of written language. Cognitive Linguistic Studies7(2).
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Marlow, J. E.
    (1994) Charles Dickens: The uses of time. London: Associated University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Nathan, G. S.
    (2008) Phonology: A cognitive grammar introduction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/clip.3
     https://doi.org/10.1075/clip.3 [Google Scholar]
  45. Semino, E. & Culpeper, J.
    (2002) Cognitive stylistics. Language and cognition in text analysis. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lal.1
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lal.1 [Google Scholar]
  46. Shyu, S.
    (2016) Information structure. InC. Huang & D. Shi (eds.), A reference grammar of Chinese (pp.518–576). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139028462.018
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139028462.018 [Google Scholar]
  47. Stein, D.
    (1995) Subjective meanings and the history of inversions in English. InD. Stein & S. Wright (eds.) Subjectivity and subjectivisation (pp.129–150). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511554469.007
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511554469.007 [Google Scholar]
  48. Stockwell, P.
    (2002) Cognitive poetics. An introduction. London/New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Su, L. I.
    (2002) Why a construction – That is the question!Concentric: Studies in English Literature and Linguistics28(2), 27–42.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Tomasello, M.
    (2005) Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Tsur, R.
    (1992) Toward a theory of cognitive poetics. Amsterdam: North Holland.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Verhagen, A.
    (2005) Constructions of intersubjectivity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. (2012) Construal and stylistics – within a language, across contexts, across languages. InStylistics across Disciplines (Conference Proceedings, CD-ROM). Leiden.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Dickens, C.
    (2010) Great expectations. Mineola; New York: Dover Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. (1990) Yuǎndà qiánchéng远大前程 [Great expectations, Wáng Kēyī 王科一Trans.]. Shanghai: Shanghai Translation Publishing House 上海译文出版社.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. (2001) Yuǎndà qiánchéng远大前程 [Great expectations, Hú Zégang 胡泽刚Trans.]. Haikou: Nánfang Publishing 南方出版社.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. (2001) Yuǎndà qiánchéng远大前程 [Great expectations, Luó Zhìyě 罗志野Trans.]. Nanjing: Yilin Press 译林出版社.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. (2004) Yuǎndà qiánchéng远大前程 [Great expectations, Yè Zūn 叶尊Trans.]. Beijing: People’s Literature Publishing House 人民文学出版社.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. (2012) Yuǎndà qiánchéng远大前程 [Great expectations, Xú Pàn 徐畔Trans.]. Harbin: North China Literature and Art Publishing House 北方文艺出版社.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00060.lu
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): constructional schema; iconicity; phonological pole; subjective construal; translation

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error