1887
Volume 28, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238
GBP
Buy:£15.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This paper analyses the linguistic resources used by speakers to profile the participants in taboo actions, focusing on expressions for the concept 'to abort' in Spanish sociolinguistic interviews. The tokens referring to the action are analysed in terms of linguistic features that affect agentivity at the level of verbs, subjects and objects. The combination of different linguistic features is classified in three levels of agentivity (prototypical agents, non-prototypical agents and non-agents) with various sublevels. The presence of modals further contributes to reducing agentivity, causing the maximally agentive profiling to be rather infrequent. Second, though the direct construal is generally preferred, the levels of agentivity interplay with onomasiological variation. Third, social variables are not significantly correlated with the levels of agentivity. The paper concludes that mitigating agentivity is a euphemistic strategy against the taboo of a fully agentive woman who aborts, based on the cultural conceptualization of unwanted abortion.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.17001.piz
2018-02-13
2018-10-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Allan, Keith , and Kate Burridge
    1991Euphemism and Dysphemism. Language Used as Shield and Weapon. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2006Forbidden Words. New York: Cambridtge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511617881
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511617881 [Google Scholar]
  3. Ávila, Rubén , and Pedro Gras
    2014 “‘No sin él’: Análisis crítico del discurso de las campañas de prevención del VIH dirigidas a hombres que tienen sexo con hombres en españa.” Discurso y Sociedad8 (2): 137–81.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Barron, Nancy
    1971 “Sex-Typed Language: The Production of Grammatical Cases.” Acta Sociologica14: 24–72. doi: 10.1177/000169937101400204
    https://doi.org/10.1177/000169937101400204 [Google Scholar]
  5. Berk-Seligson, Susan
    1983 “Sources of Variation in Spanish Verb Construction Usage: The Active, the Dative, and the Reflexive Passive.” Journal of Pragmatics7 (2): 145–68. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(83)90050‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(83)90050-4 [Google Scholar]
  6. Brown, Penelope , and Stephen Levinson
    1987Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Cestero Mancera, Ana María
    2015 “La expresión del tabú: Estudio sociolingüístico.” Boletín de Filología50 (1): 71–105. doi: 10.4067/S0718‑93032015000100003
    https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-93032015000100003 [Google Scholar]
  8. Chamizo Domínguez, Pedro J. , and Francisco Sánchez Benedito
    2000Lo que nunca se aprendió en clase. Eufemismos y disfemismos en el lenguaje erótico inglés. Granada: Comares.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Christie, Christine
    2013 “The Relevance of Taboo Language: An Analysis of the Indexical Values of Swearwords.” Journal of Pragmatics58: 152–69. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.06.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.06.009 [Google Scholar]
  10. Coulson, Seana
    1992 “Is Incest Best? The Role of Pragmatic Scales and Cultural Models in Abortion Rhetoric.” Center for Research in Language Newsletter7 (2), accessedMarch 20, 2017, https://crl.ucsd.edu/newsletter/7-2/Article1.html.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Crespo-Fernández, Eliecer
    2007El eufemismo y el disfemismo. Procesos de manipulación del tabú en el lenguaje literario inglés. Alicante: Universidad de Alicante.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 2013 “Words as Weapons for Mass Persuasion: Dysphemism in Churchill’s Wartime Speeches.” Text and Talk33 (3): 311–30. doi: 10.1515/text‑2013‑0014
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2013-0014 [Google Scholar]
  13. 2015Sex in Language. Euphemistic and Dysphemistic Metaphors in Internet Forums. London: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Croft, W. , and A. Cruse
    2004Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511803864
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864 [Google Scholar]
  15. Cruse, D. A.
    1973 “Some Thoughts on Agentivity.” Journal of Linguistics9 (1): 11–23. doi: 10.1017/S0022226700003509
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700003509 [Google Scholar]
  16. De Cock, Barbara
    2014Profiling Discourse Participants. Forms and Functions in Spanish Conversation and Debates. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. De Cock, Barbara , and Daniel Michaud Maturana
    2014 “La expresión de la agentividad en el Informe Rettig (Chile, 1991).” Revista Internacional de Linguistica Iberoamericana23: 123–40.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 2018 “Discursive Construction of Human Rights Violations: The Case of the Chilean Rettig Report.” Text & Talk38(1): 1–28. doi: 10.1515/text‑2017‑0028
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2017-0028 [Google Scholar]
  19. Delancey, Scott
    1984 “Notes on Agentivity and Causation.” Studies in Language8: 181–213. doi: 10.1075/sl.8.2.05del
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.8.2.05del [Google Scholar]
  20. Delbecque, Nicole
    2003 “La variable expresión del agente en las construcciones pasivas.” Nueva Revista de Filología Hispánica LI (2): 373–416. doi: 10.24201/nrfh.v51i2.2214
    https://doi.org/10.24201/nrfh.v51i2.2214 [Google Scholar]
  21. Delbecque, Nicole , and Béatrice Lamiroy
    1999 “La subordinación sustantiva: Las subordinadas enunciativas en los complementos verbales.” InGramática Descriptiva de La Lengua Española (Vol.2), edited by Ignacio Bosque and Violeta Demonte , 1965–2083. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Geeraerts, Dirk , Stefan Grondelaers , and Peter Bakema
    1994The Structure of Lexical Variation. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110873061
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110873061 [Google Scholar]
  23. Gómez Torrego, Leonardo
    1998La impersonalidad gramatical: Descripción y norma. Madrid: Arco Libros.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 1999 “Los verbos auxiliares. Las perífrasis verbales de infinitivo.” InGramática Descriptiva de La Lengua Española (Vol.2), edited by Ignacio Bosque , and Violeta Demonte , 3323–90. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Gradečak-Erdeljić, Tanja , and Goran Milić
    2011 “Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Case of Euphemisms and Dysphemisms.” InDefining Metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics. Towards a Consensus View, edited by Réka Benczes , Antonio Barcelona , and Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez , 147–166. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.28.08gra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.28.08gra [Google Scholar]
  26. Grondelaers, Stefan , and Dirk Geeraerts
    1998 “Vagueness as a Euphemistic Strategy.” InSpeaking of Emotions: Conceptualisation and Expression, edited by Angeliki Athanasiadou , and Elżbieta Tabakowska , 357–74. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110806007.357
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110806007.357 [Google Scholar]
  27. Gruber, Jeffrey S.
    1967 “Look and See.” Language43 (4): 937–47. doi: 10.2307/411974
    https://doi.org/10.2307/411974 [Google Scholar]
  28. Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood
    1967 “Notes on Transitivity and Theme in English: Part 2.” Journal of Linguistics3 (2): 199–244. doi: 10.1017/S0022226700016613
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700016613 [Google Scholar]
  29. Janicki, Karol
    2006Language Misconceived. Arguing for Applied Cognitive Sociolinguistics. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Kany, Charles E.
    1960American-Spanish Euphemisms. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Kumar, Anuradha , Leila Hessini , and Ellen M. H. Mitchell
    2009 “Conceptualising Abortion Stigma.” Culture, Health & Sexuality11 (6): 625–39. doi: 10.1080/13691050902842741
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13691050902842741 [Google Scholar]
  32. Lemmens, Maarten
    1997 “The Transitive-Ergative Interplay and the Conception of the World: A Case Study.” InLexical and Syntactical Constructions and the Construction of Meaning, ed. by Marjolijn Verspoor , Kee Dong Lee and Eve Sweetser , 363–82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.150.26lem
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.150.26lem [Google Scholar]
  33. 1998Lexical Perspectives on Transitivity and Ergativity. Causative Constructions in English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.166
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.166 [Google Scholar]
  34. Leonetti, Manuel
    1990El artículo y la referencia. Madrid: Taurus.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. López Morales, Humberto
    2001 “Estratificación social del tabú lingüístico: El caso de Puerto Rico.” InActas del I Congreso de la Asociación de Lingüística y Filología de América Latina (ALFAL) Región Noroeste de Europa, edited by Bob de Jonge . Estudios de Lingüística del Español 13, accessedMarch 20, 2017, elies.rediris.es/elies13/lopez.htm.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Lyons, John
    1968Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139165570
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165570 [Google Scholar]
  37. Mendikoetxea, Amaya
    1999a “Construcciones con se: Medias, pasivas e impersonales.” InGramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, edited by Ignacio Bosque , and Violeta Demonte , 1631–1722. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 1999b “Construcciones inacusativas y pasivas.” InGramática descriptiva de la lengua española (vol.2), edited by Violeta Demonte , and Ignacio Bosque , 1575–1630. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Norris, Allison , Danielle Bessett , Julia R. Steinberg , Megan L. Kavanaugh , and Davida Becker Silvia De Zordo
    2011 “Abortion Stigma: A Reconceptualization of Constituents, Causes, and Consequences.” Women’s Health Issue49–54. doi: 10.1016/j.whi.2011.02.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.whi.2011.02.010 [Google Scholar]
  40. Nuyts, Jan , Pieter Byloo , and Janneke Diepeveen
    2010 “On Deontic Modality, Directivity, and Mood: The Case of Dutch Mogen and Moeten.” Journal of Pragmatics42 (1): 16–34. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.05.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.05.012 [Google Scholar]
  41. Observatorio de Salud de la Mujer, O.S.M.
    Observatorio de Salud de la Mujer, O.S.M. 2005 “Estudio sociológico: Contexto de la interrupción voluntaria del embarazo en población adolescente y juventud temprana.” Madrid: Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo.
  42. Pizarro Pedraza, Andrea
    2013Tabú y eufemismo en la ciudad de Madrid. Estudio sociolingüístico-cognitivo de los conceptos sexuales. Madrid: Universidad Complutense.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 2015 “Who Said ‘Abortion’? Semantic Variation and Ideology in Spanish Newspapers’ Online Discussions.” Australian Journal of Linguistics35 (1): 53–75. doi: 10.1080/07268602.2015.976901
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2015.976901 [Google Scholar]
  44. 2018 “Calling Things by Their Name: Exploring the Social Meanings in the Preference for Sexual (In)Direct Construals.” InLinguistic Taboo Revisited: Novel Insights from Cognitive Perspectives, ed. by Andrea Pizarro Pedraza , 245–268. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
  45. . Submitted. “ MadSex: Collecting a spoken corpus of indirectly elicited sexual concepts.”
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Purcell, Carrie , Shona Hilton , and Lisa McDaid
    2014 “The Stigmatisation of Abortion: A Qualitative Analysis of Print Media in Great Britain in 2010.” Culture, Health & Sexuality16 (9): 1141–55. doi: 10.1080/13691058.2014.937463
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2014.937463 [Google Scholar]
  47. Ramos, Ramón
    1982 “Informe-resumen de los resultados de una investigación sociológica sobre el aborto mediante discusiones de grupo.” Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas21 (enero-marzo): 243–54.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Real Academia Española
    Real Academia Española (2001) Diccionario de la lengua española (DLE) (23rd ed.). www.rae.es/rae.html.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Rodríguez González, Félix
    2011Diccionario del sexo y el erotismo. Madrid: Alianza.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Tolchinsky, Liliana , and Elisa Rosado
    2005 “The Effect of Literacy, Text Type, and Modality on the Use of Grammatical Means for Agency Alternation in Spanish.” Journal of Pragmatics37 (2): 209–37. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(04)00195‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(04)00195-X [Google Scholar]
  51. Verstraete, Jean Christophe
    2005 “Scalar Quantity Implicatures and the Interpretation of Modality. Problems in the Deontic Domain.” Journal of Pragmatics37 (9 SPEC. ISS.): 1401–18. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.02.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.02.003 [Google Scholar]
  52. Warren, Beatrice
    1992 “What Euphemisms tell us about the Interpretation of Words.” Studia Linguistica46 (2): 128–72. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9582.1992.tb00833.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9582.1992.tb00833.x [Google Scholar]
  53. Yamamoto, Matsumi
    2006Agency and Impersonality: Their Linguistic and Cultural Manifestations. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.78
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.78 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.17001.piz
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/prag.17001.piz
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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