1887
Volume 31, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0929-998X
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9765
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper examines two variants of the pseudo-cleft construction which display a WHAT-NP-VP-be pattern with the VP realised with cognitive verbs and the proform in the context of spoken British English dyadic and multi-party BBC podcasts. It is based on the premise that the construction’s referencing potentials are both cataphoric and projective, and that depending on its contexts, one of the two referencing functions is foregrounded while the other is backgrounded. The analysis focuses on those linguistic features and contextual configurations which either contribute to its cataphoric referencing function, or which go beyond the local cataphoric referencing function and indicate its projective, discourse-organising function. The research is corpus-based and uses quantitative and qualitative methodologies, filtering out the linguistic features and contextual configurations which contribute to assigning the two variants the status of a projective construction with a discourse-organising function. The features under investigation are (1) the semantics of the constitutive NPs and VPs marking for tense, aspect and modality and their uptake in the discourse, (2) degrees of continuity and discontinuity in the cohesive chains triggered by the constitutive parts of the construction. The paper shows that when semantic continuity between the clause and what follows is discontinued and thus deferred, the construction’s projective function is foregrounded.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/fol.23054.ber
2024-07-15
2025-02-12
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Akmajian, Adrian
    1970Aspects of the grammar of focus in English. Boston: Massachusetts Institute of Technology PhD Thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Asher, Nicholas & Alex Lascarides
    2003Logics of conversation. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Auer, Peter
    2005 Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text. Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse251. 7–36. 10.1515/text.2005.25.1.7
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2005.25.1.7 [Google Scholar]
  4. 2009 Projection and minimalistic syntax in interaction. Discourse Processes461. 180–205. 10.1080/01638530902728934
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530902728934 [Google Scholar]
  5. Berthe, Florine
    2021De la clivée en th- à la structure the-N-is en anglais oral: Vers une lecture discursive, prosodique et dialogique. Metz: Université de Lorraine & Augsburg Universität PhD thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Corminboeuf, Gilles & Anne-Sylvie Horlacher
    2016 La projection en macro-syntaxe et en linguistique interactionnelle: Dimensions théoriques et empiriques. Langue Francaise192(4). 15–36. 10.3917/lf.192.0015
    https://doi.org/10.3917/lf.192.0015 [Google Scholar]
  7. Crible, Ludivine & Vera Demberg
    2020 When do we leave discourse relations underspecified? The effect of formality and relation type. Discours (online) 261. 3–25. 10.4000/discours.10848
    https://doi.org/10.4000/discours.10848 [Google Scholar]
  8. Das, Debopam & Markus Egg
    2023 Continuity in discourse relations. Functions of Language301. 41–66. 10.1075/fol.22017.das
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.22017.das [Google Scholar]
  9. Fetzer, Anita
    2017 Contrastive discourse relations in context: Evidence from monologic and dialogic editing tasks. InRachel Giora & Michael Haugh (eds.), Doing pragmatics interculturally: Cognitive, philosophical, and sociopragmatic perspectives, 269–292. Berlin: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110546095‑015
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110546095-015 [Google Scholar]
  10. 2018 Discourse pragmatics: Communicative action meets discourse analysis. InCornelia Ilie & Neal Norrick (eds.), Pragmatics and its interfaces, 33–57. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.294.03fet
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.294.03fet [Google Scholar]
  11. Fetzer, Anita & Matthias Klumm
    2023 The linguistic realization of continuative discourse relations in English discourse: A context-based analysis across narrative and argumentative genres. Functions of Language30(1). 16–40. 10.1075/fol.22010.fet
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.22010.fet [Google Scholar]
  12. Gaudy-Campbell, Isabelle, Héloïse Lechevallier-Parent & Vasilica Le Floch
    2016 Articulation topicale, référentielle et macrosyntaxique dans un discours oral. Modèles Linguistiques731. 21–58. 10.4000/ml.2098
    https://doi.org/10.4000/ml.2098 [Google Scholar]
  13. Givón, Talmy
    1993English grammar: A function-based introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 2005Context as other minds: The pragmatics of sociality, cognition and communication. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.130
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.130 [Google Scholar]
  15. Günthner, Susanne
    2011N be that-constructions in everyday German conversation: A reanalysis of ‘die Sache ist/das Ding ist’ (‘the thing is’)-clauses as projector phrases. InRitva Laury & Ryoko Suzuki (eds.), Subordination in conversation: A cross-linguistic perspective, 11–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.24.03gun
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.24.03gun [Google Scholar]
  16. Halliday, M. A. K.
    1994An introduction to functional grammar. London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Halliday, M. A. K. & Ruqaiya Hasan
    1976Cohesion in English. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Herman, Thierry
    2016 Projections programmatiques, entamées et potentielles dans l’écrit scientifique: L’attente dans une perspective de linguistique textuelle. Langue Française192(4). 97–116. 10.3917/lf.192.0097
    https://doi.org/10.3917/lf.192.0097 [Google Scholar]
  19. Higgins, Francis
    1979The pseudo-cleft construction in English. New York: Garland.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Hopper, Paul
    2001 Grammatical constructions and their discourse origins: Prototype or family resemblance?InMartin Pütz, Suzanne Niemeier & René Dirven (eds.), Applied Cognitive Linguistics: Theory, acquisition, and language pedagogy, 109–129. Berlin: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110866247.109
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110866247.109 [Google Scholar]
  21. 2004 The openness of grammatical constructions. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society401. 153–175.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Hopper, Paul & Sandra Thompson
    2008 Projectability and clause combining in interaction. InRitva Laury (ed.), Crosslinguistic studies of clause combining: The multifunctionality of conjunctions, 99–123. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.80.06hop
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.80.06hop [Google Scholar]
  23. Koops, Christian & Martin Hilpert
    2009 The co-evolution of syntactic and pragmatic complexity. InTalmy Givón & Masayoshi Shibatani (eds.), Syntactic complexity: Diachrony, acquisition, cognition and neurology, 215–238. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.85.09the
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.85.09the [Google Scholar]
  24. Lapaire, Jean-Rémi & Wilfrid Rotgé
    1991Linguistique et grammaire de l’anglais. Toulouse: Presses Universitaires du Mirail.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Lindström, Jan, Sofie Henricson & Martina Huhtamäki
    2022 Pseudo-cleft constructions in Swedish talk-in-interaction: Turn projection and discourse organization. Lingua2651. e103167. 10.1016/j.lingua.2021.103167
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2021.103167 [Google Scholar]
  26. Mann, William & Sandra Thompson
    1988 Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text8(3). 243–281.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Maschler, Yael & Simona Pekarek Doehler
    2022 Pseudo-cleft-like structures in Hebrew and French conversation: The syntax-lexicon-body interface. Lingua2801. e103397. 10.1016/j.lingua.2022.103397
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2022.103397 [Google Scholar]
  28. Maschler, Yael, Jan Lindström & Elwys De Stefani
    2023 Pseudo-clefts: An interactional analysis across languages. Lingua2911. e103538. 10.1016/j.lingua.2023.103538
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2023.103538 [Google Scholar]
  29. Pekarek-Doehler, Simona
    2008 Organisation séquentielle et configurations syntaxiques de la parole-en-interaction. InJacques Durand, Benoît Habert & Bernard Laks (eds.), Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française — CMLF'08, 789–802. Paris: Institut de Linguistique Française.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Prince, Ellen F.
    1978 A comparison of wh-clefts and it-clefts in discourse. Language54(4). 883–906. 10.2307/413238
    https://doi.org/10.2307/413238 [Google Scholar]
  31. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    1980 Preliminaries to preliminaries: “Can I ask you a question?” Sociological Inquiry50(3–4). 104–152. 10.1111/j.1475‑682X.1980.tb00018.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00018.x [Google Scholar]
  32. Streeck, Jürgen
    1995 On projection. InEsther N. Goody (ed.), Social intelligence and interaction: Expressions and implications of the social bias in human intelligence, 87–110. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511621710.007
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621710.007 [Google Scholar]
  33. Taboada, Maite
    2009 Implicit and explicit coherence relations. InJan Renkema (ed.), Discourse, of course: An overview of research in discourse studies, 127–140. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.148.13tab
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.148.13tab [Google Scholar]
  34. Weinert, Regina & Jim Miller
    1996 Cleft constructions in spoken language. Journal of Pragmatics25(2). 173–206. 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)00079‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)00079-4 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/fol.23054.ber
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/fol.23054.ber
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): cataphora; cohesive chain; context; discourse grammar; projection; pseudo-cleft construction
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