1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Languages in Contrast
  4. Volume 23, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 23, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1387-6759
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9897
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper is a contrastive corpus-based study of similative demonstratives, a major means of expressing similarity and ad-hoc categorization. It explores the divergence between the Czech demonstrative and its English dictionary equivalent in their “atypical” – extended, or non-phoric – uses. Through the triangulation of comparable fiction texts, their translation (from a bidirectional translation corpus) and spoken language data (from comparable monolingual corpora of spoken English and Czech), converging evidence is found of the development of discourse functions of the Czech which shows an increase in its intersubjectivity, not attested with , but common with the English type nouns , and . These cross-linguistic parallels are not only relevant for current discussions on intersubjectivity and intersubjectification, but they also call for further research on general patterns of ad-hoc categorization.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lic.00026.jan
2023-10-02
2024-10-08

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/lic.00026.jan
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Altenberg, B.
    2007 The Correspondence of Resultive Connectors in English and Swedish. Nordic Journal of English Studies6(1): 1–26. 10.35360/njes.2
     https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.2 [Google Scholar]
  2. Benešová, L., Křen, M. and Waclawičová, M.
    2013 ORAL2013: reprezentativní korpus neformální mluvené češtiny. ÚČNK FF UK, Praha. Available atwww.korpus.cz
  3. Čermák, F. and Rosen, A.
    2012 The Case of InterCorp, a Multilingual Parallel Corpus. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics17(3): 411–427. 10.1075/ijcl.17.3.05cer
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.17.3.05cer [Google Scholar]
  4. Consten, M. and Averintseva-Klisch, M.
    2012 Tentative Reference Acts? “Recognitional Demonstratives” as Means of Suggesting Mutual Knowledge – or Overriding a Lack of it. Research in Language (10)31: 257–77. 10.2478/v10015‑011‑0033‑x
     https://doi.org/10.2478/v10015-011-0033-x [Google Scholar]
  5. Diessel, H.
    1999 Demonstratives: Form, Function, and Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.42
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.42 [Google Scholar]
  6. 2006 Demonstratives, Joint Attention, and the Emergence of Grammar. Cognitive Linguistics171: 463–89. 10.1515/COG.2006.015
     https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2006.015 [Google Scholar]
  7. Friendly, M.
    1994 Mosaic Displays for Multi-Way Contingency Tables. Journal of the American Statistical Association891: 190–200. 10.1080/01621459.1994.10476460
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1994.10476460 [Google Scholar]
  8. Ghesquière, L. and Van de Velde, F.
    2011 A Corpus-Based Account of the Development of English such and Dutch zulk: Identification, Intensification and (Inter)Subjectivity. Cognitive Linguistics221: 765–797. 10.1515/cogl.2011.028
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2011.028 [Google Scholar]
  9. Ghesquière, L., Brems, L. and Van de Velde, F.
    2014 Intersubjectivity and Intersubjectification. Typology and Operationalization. InIntersubjectivity and Intersubjectification, L. Brems, L. Ghesquière and F. Van de Velde (eds), 129–153. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Hardie, A.
    2012 CQPweb – Combining Power, Flexibility and Usability in a Corpus Analysis Tool. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics17(3): 380–409. 10.1075/ijcl.17.3.04har
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.17.3.04har [Google Scholar]
  11. Himmelmann, N.
    1996 Demonstratives in Narrative Discourse: A Taxonomy of Universal Uses. InStudies in Anaphora, B. Fox (ed.), 205–54. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.33.08him
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.33.08him [Google Scholar]
  12. 2004 Lexicalization and Grammaticization: Opposite or Orthogonal?InWhat Makes Grammaticalization: A Look from its Fringes and its Components, W. Bisang, N. Himmelmann and B. Wiemer (eds), 21–42. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197440.1.21
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197440.1.21 [Google Scholar]
  13. Hirschová, M.
    1988 Netypické případy užití ukazovacích výrazů takový, tak. Naše řeč71(2): 57–61.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Janebová, M., Martinková, M. and Gast, V.
    2023 Czech Type Nouns: Evidence from Corpora. InType Noun Constructions in Slavic, Germanic and Romance Languages: Semantics and Pragmatics on the Move, W. Mihatsch, I. Hennecke, A. Kisiel, A. Kolyaseva, K. Davidse and L. Brems (eds), 571–617. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110701104‑015
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110701104-015 [Google Scholar]
  15. Johansson, S.
    2007a Seeing through Multilingual Corpora. On the Use of Corpora in Contrastive Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.26
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.26 [Google Scholar]
  16. 2007b Seeing through Multilingual Corpora. InCorpus Linguistics 25 Years On, R. Facchinetti (ed.), 51–72. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 10.1163/9789401204347_005
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789401204347_005 [Google Scholar]
  17. Kilgarriff, A., Rychlý, P., Smrž, P. and Tugwell, D.
    2004 The Sketch Engine. Proceedings of the Eleventh EURALEX International Congress. Lorient, France, 6–10 July 2004. 105–116.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Komárek, M., Kořenský, J., Petr, J. and Veselková, J.
    1986 Mluvnice češtiny 2. Tvarosloví. Prague: Academia.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. König, E.
    2017 The Deictic Identification of Similarity. InSimilative and Equative Constructions: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective, Y. Treis and M. Vanhove (eds), 143–164. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.117.06kon
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.117.06kon [Google Scholar]
  20. 2020 Beyond Exophoric and Endophoric Uses: Additional Discourse Functions of Demonstratives. InDemonstratives in discourse, Å. Næss, A. Margetts and Y. Treis (eds), 21–42. Berlin: Language Science Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. König, E. and Umbach, C.
    2018 Demonstratives of Manner, of Quality and of Degree: A Neglected Subclass. InAtypical Demonstratives: Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics, M. Coniglio, A. Murphy, E. Schlachter and T. Veenstra (eds), 285–327. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110560299‑010
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110560299-010 [Google Scholar]
  22. Křížková, H.
    1971 Zájmena typu ten a takový v současných slovanských jazycích. Slavica slovaca6(1): 15–30.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Love, R., Dembry, C., Hardie, A., Brezina, V. and McEnery, T.
    2017 The Spoken BNC2014: Designing and Building a Spoken Corpus of Everyday Conversations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics22(3): 319–344.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Mauri, C. and Sansò, A.
    2020 Ad hoc Categorization and Languaging: The Online Construction of Categories in Discourse. Language Sciences811: 1–7. 10.1016/j.langsci.2020.101312
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2020.101312 [Google Scholar]
  25. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. and Svartvik, J.
    1985 A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Šimík, R.
    2016 On Pragmatic Demonstratives: The Case of Pragmatic Discourse Anaphora in Czech. InProceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung201, N. Bade, P. Berezovskaya, and A. Schöller (eds), 640–657. Available athttps://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/sub/index.php/sub/article/view/287/221
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Traugott, E. C.
    2003 From Subjectification to Intersubjectification. InMotives for Language Change, Raymond Hickey (ed.), 124–39. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486937.009
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486937.009 [Google Scholar]
  28. 2008 Grammaticalization, Constructions and the Incremental Development of Language: Suggestions from the Development of Degree Modifiers in English. InLanguage Evolution: Cognitive and Cultural Factors, R. Eckardt, G. Jaeger and T. Veenstra (eds), 219–40. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. 2010 (Inter)Subjectivity and (Inter)Subjectification: A Reassessment. InSubjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization, K. Davidse, L. Vandelanotte, and H. Cuyckens (eds), 29–71. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110226102.1.29
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226102.1.29 [Google Scholar]
  30. Uhlířová, L.
    1992 Ten nějaký//nějaký ten a případy podobné. Naše řeč75(5): 247–254.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Umbach, C. and Ebert, C.
    2009 German Demonstrative so – Intensifying and Hedging Effects. Sprache und Datenverarbeitung33(1–2): 153–168.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. van der Auwera, J. and Coussé, E.
    2016 Such and Sådan – The Same but Different. Nordic Journal of English Studies15(3): 15–32. 10.35360/njes.374
     https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.374 [Google Scholar]
  33. van der Auwera, J. and Sahoo, K.
    2020 Such Similatives: A Cross-Linguistic Reconnaissance. Language Sciences811:1–13. 10.1016/j.langsci.2018.12.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2018.12.002 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/lic.00026.jan
Loading
On similative demonstratives in Czech and English
Languages in Contrast 23, 133 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.00026.jan
/content/journals/10.1075/lic.00026.jan
/content/journals/10.1075/lic.00026.jan
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): (inter)subjectivity; ad-hoc categorization; Czech/English; similarity; similative demonstratives

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