1887
Volume 5, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2214-3157
  • E-ISSN: 2214-3165
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes
Preview this article:
Zoom in
Zoomout

Introduction, Page 1 of 1

| /docserver/preview/fulltext/ijolc.00004.gar-1.gif

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ijolc.00004.gar
2018-06-28
2019-10-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aikhenvald, A. Y.
    (2003) Classifiers: A typology of noun categorization devices. Oxford: Oxford UP.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Audring, J.
    (2009) Reinventing pronoun gender. Dissertation. Utrecht: LOT.
  3. Auerbach, J. S. , Levy, K. N. , & Schaffer, C. E. S.
    (2005) Relatedness, self-definition and mental representation. Essays in honor of Sidney J. Blatt. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203337318
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203337318 [Google Scholar]
  4. Auster, P.
    (2012) Winter’s journal. London: Faber & Faber.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. (2013) Report from the interior. London: Faber & Faber.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Baerman, M. , Brown, D. , & Corbett, G. G.
    (2005) The syntax-morphology interface: A study of syncretism. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 109. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.10.1017/CBO9780511486234
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486234 [Google Scholar]
  7. Barnes, W.
    (1863) A grammar and glossary of the Dorset dialect, with the history, outspreading, and bearings of south-western English. Berlin: Asher & Co.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Becker, M.
    (2014) The acquisition of syntactic structure: Animacy and thematic alignment. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 141. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.10.1017/CBO9781139022033
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139022033 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bhat, D. N. S.
    (2004) Pronouns. Oxford: Oxford UP.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Brown, P. , & Levinson, S. C.
    (1987) Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Charteris-Black, J.
    (2005) Politicians and rhetoric: The persuasive power of metaphor. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. (2014) Analysing political speeches: Rhetoric, discourse and metaphor. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Chevalier, Y. , de Chanay, H. C. , & Gardelle, L.
    (2017) Bases linguistiques de l’émancipation : système anglais, système français. Mots, les langages du politique, 113, Ecrire le genre, 9–36.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Cockburn, P. , & Cockburn, H.
    (2011) Living with schizophrenia: a father’s and son’s story. New York City: Simon & Schuster.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Comrie, B.
    (1989) Language nniversals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Corbett, G. G.
    (1991) Gender. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.10.1017/CBO9781139166119
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166119 [Google Scholar]
  17. (2000) Number. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.10.1017/CBO9781139164344
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139164344 [Google Scholar]
  18. (2001) Number. In M. Haspelmath , E. König , W. Oesterreicher & W. Raible (Eds.), Language typology and language universals / Sprachtypologie und sprachliche Universalien / La typologie des langues et les universaux linguistiques: An international handbook / Ein internationales Handbuch / Manuel international, Vol.1 (pp.816–831). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. (2012) Features. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.10.1017/CBO9781139206983
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139206983 [Google Scholar]
  20. Croft, W.
    (1990) Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. (2003) Typology and universals. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Dahl, O. , & Fraurud, K.
    (1996) Animacy in grammar and discourse. In T. Fretheim & J. K. Gundel (Eds.), Reference and referent accessibility (pp.47–64). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.38.04dah
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.38.04dah [Google Scholar]
  23. Davidson, D.
    (1971) Agency. In R. Binkley et al. (Eds.), Agent, action, and reason (pp.3–25). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. De Cock, B.
    (2016) Register, genre and referential ambiguity of personal pronouns: a cross-linguistic analysis. Pragmatics, 26(3), 361–378.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Delconte, M.
    (2003) Why You can’t speak: Second-person narration, voice, and a new model for understanding narrative. Style, 37(2), 204–219.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Demjén, Z. , & Semino, E.
    (2015) Henry’s voices: the representation of auditory verbal hallucinations in an autobiographical narrative. Medical Humanities, 41, 57–62.10.1136/medhum‑2014‑010617
    https://doi.org/10.1136/medhum-2014-010617 [Google Scholar]
  27. Dixon, R. M. W.
    (1979) Ergativity. Language, 55, 59–138.10.2307/412519
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412519 [Google Scholar]
  28. (1994) Ergativity. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 69. Cambridge: CUP.10.1017/CBO9780511611896
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611896 [Google Scholar]
  29. Elworthy, F. T.
    (1877) An outline of the grammar of the dialect of West Somerset, illustrated by examples of the common phrases and modes of speech now in use among the people. London: Trübner & Co.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. England, N.
    (1991) Changes in basic word order in Mayan languages. International Journal of American Linguistics, 57, 446–486.10.1086/ijal.57.4.3519735
    https://doi.org/10.1086/ijal.57.4.3519735 [Google Scholar]
  31. Forchheimer, P.
    (1953) The category of person in language. Berlin: de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Fowler, R.
    (1977) Linguistics and the novel. London: Arrowsmith.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Gardelle, L.
    (2013) Gender/sex discrepancies in pronominal references to animals: a statistical analysis. English Language and Linguistics, 17(1), 181–194.10.1017/S1360674312000366
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674312000366 [Google Scholar]
  34. (2015) Sex-indefinite references to human beings in American English: effective uses and pragmatic interferences. A case study of your child . In L. Gardelle & S. Sorlin (Eds.), The Pragmatics of Personal Pronouns (pp.69–92). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.171.04gar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.171.04gar [Google Scholar]
  35. Gibbs, R. W., Jr.
    (1994) The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Golding, W.
    (1961 [1955]) The inheritors. London: Faber and Faber.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Grasserie, R. de la
    (1886–1887) Etudes de grammaire comparée: de la catégorie du nombre. Revue de linguistique et de philologie comparée19 (1886), 87–105, 113–46, 232–53; and 20 (1887), 57–67.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Guéguen, N.
    (2014) Psychologie de la manipulation et de la soumission. Paris: Dunod.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. (2016) Psychologie du consommateur. Third edition. Paris: Dunod.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Haddon, M.
    (2003) The curious incident of the dog in the night-time. London: Vintage.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Hart, C.
    (2010) Critical discourse analysis and cognitive science. New perspectives on immigration discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230299009
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230299009 [Google Scholar]
  42. Haspelmath, M.
    (2013) Occurrence of nominal plurality. In M. S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (Eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. wals.info/chapter/34, accessed on22/08/2017.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Huddleston, R. , & Pullum, G. K.
    (2002) The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. James, T.
    (2015) The tusk that did the damage. London: Harvill Secker.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Jeffries, L.
    (2010) Critical stylistics. The power of English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Mamillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Johnson, B.
    (2010 [2008]) Persons and things. Cambridge, Mass and London: Harvard UP.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Kövecses, Z.
    (2010) Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Kuno, S.
    (1976) Subject, theme, and the speaker’s empathy – a re-examination of relativization phenomena. In C. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp.417–444). New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Lakoff, G. , & Johnson, M.
    (1999) Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Langacker, R. W.
    (1991) Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 2, Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford UP.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Matthews, P. H.
    (2007) The concise Oxford dictionary of linguistics. 2nd edition. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. McInerney, J.
    (1984) Bright lights, Big city. London, Berlin, New York, Sydney: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Musolff, A.
    (2004) Metaphor in political discourse: Analogical reasoning in debates about Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230504516
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230504516 [Google Scholar]
  54. Oxford English Dictionary online
    Oxford English Dictionary online. Oxford University Press 2017.
  55. Romaine, S.
    (2000) Language in society: An introduction to sociolinguistics. 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford UP.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Rospide, M. , & Sandrine, S.
    (Eds) (2015) The ethics and poetics of alterity. New perspectives on genre literature. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Ryder, R. D.
    (2000 [1989]) Animal revolution. Oxford: Berg.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. (2009 [1998]) Speciesism. In M. Bekoff (Ed.), Encyclopedia of animal rights and animal welfare. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Sasse, H-J.
    (1993) Syntactic categories and subcategories. In J. Jacobs et al. (Eds.), Syntax. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung (pp.646–686). Berlin: de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Sealey, A. , & Oakley, L.
    (2013) Anthropomorphic grammar? Some linguistic patterns in the wildlife documentary series Life . Text & Talk, 33(3), 399–420.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. (2014) Why did the Canada goose cross the sea? Accounting for the behaviour of wildlife in the documentary series Life . International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 19–37.10.1111/ijal.12007
    https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12007 [Google Scholar]
  62. Semino, E.
    (2014) Language and autism in Mark Haddon’s The curious incident of the dog in the night-time . In M. Fludernik & D. Jacob (Eds), Linguistics and Literary Studies (pp. 279–303). Berlin: de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Sewell, A.
    (2011 [1877]) Black beauty. New York: Grosset & Dunlap.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Siemund, P.
    (2008) Pronominal gender in English. A study of English varieties from a cross-linguistic perspective. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Siewierska, A.
    (2004) Person. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.10.1017/CBO9780511812729
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511812729 [Google Scholar]
  66. Silverstein, M.
    (1976) Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In R. M. W. Dixon (Ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages. Linguistic Series 22 (pp.112–171). Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Smith, S.
    (2010) How to do everything, from the man who should know: Red green. Toronto: Doubleday Canada (Random House).
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Smith-Stark, T. C.
    (1974) The plurality split. Chicago Linguistic Society, 10, 657–661.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Sorlin, S.
    (2010) La défamiliarisation linguistique dans le roman anglais contemporain. Montpellier: PULM.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. (2014) La stylistique anglaise. Théories et pratiques. Rennes: PUR.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. (2017) The second-person pronoun across genres. RANAM, 50, 135–148.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Sridhar, S. N.
    (1990) Kannada. Descriptive grammars series. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Stockwell, P.
    (2009) Texture. A cognitive aesthetics of reading. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Talmy, L.
    (2000) Towards a cognitive semantics. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Tillyard, E. M. W.
    (1959) The Elizabethan world picture: A study of the idea of order in the age of Shakespeare, Donne, Milton. New York: Vintage Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Trush, T.
    (2012) The ‘You’ effect. How to transform ego-based marketing into captivating messages that creates customers. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Van den Berg, R.
    (1989) A grammar of the Muna language. Ph. D. dissertation. Leiden.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Virtanen, T.
    (2015) Referring to oneself in the third person: A novel construction in text-based computer-mediated communication. In L. Gardelle & S. Sorlin (Eds), The pragmatics of personal pronouns. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.10.1075/slcs.171.11vir
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.171.11vir [Google Scholar]
  79. Wagner, S.
    (2003) Gender in English pronouns – myth and reality. PhD dissertation, Freiburg University 2003 <www.freidok.uni-freiburg.de/volltexte/1412, accessedAugust 2017.
  80. Wales, K.
    (2013) Alice in Ego-Land. Babel, 4, 35–37.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. (2015) ‘Loquor, ergo sum’; ‘I’ and animateness ee-considered. In L. Gardelle & S. Sorlin (Eds), The pragmatics of personal pronouns (pp.95–104). Amsterdam, John Benjamins Publishing.10.1075/slcs.171.05wal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.171.05wal [Google Scholar]
  82. Woolf, V.
    (2009 [1933]) Flush: A Biography. Oxford: Oxford UP.
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Yamamoto, M.
    (1999) Animacy and reference: A cognitive approach to corpus linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.46
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.46 [Google Scholar]
  84. (2006) Agency and impersonality: Their linguistic and cultural manifestations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.78
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.78 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ijolc.00004.gar
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ijolc.00004.gar
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Introduction
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