1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics
  4. Volume 30, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 30, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0213-2028
  • E-ISSN: 2254-6774
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This paper studies the fundamental characteristics of a subgroup of members of the family of complementary-contrastive discourse constructions in English. Following Ruiz de Mendoza and Gómez-González (2014) by discourse constructions this article refers to form-meaning pairings capturing relational meaning such as addition, exemplification, contrast, etc. grounded in high-level cognitive models. A discourse construction (e.g., ; cf. Fillmore, Kay, & O’Connor, 1988 ), generally consists of a fixed part and two variables, where the fixed part is a connector (a discourse marker or a conjunction). The constructions under scrutiny indicate a relation between two elements or situations in the world that are opposites but not exclusive of each other. Many of the members of this constructional family have frequently been treated as fully interchangeable in standard lexicographic practice. By contrast, this paper argues that each of these constructions introduces small but decisive changes in focal structure, resulting in important differences in meaning. Taking this evidence into account, the paper specifies the cases where one construction is used with preference over the others.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/resla.30.1.09iza
2017-11-23
2024-12-10

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/resla.30.1.09iza
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bach, K.
    (1994) Conversational impliciture. Mind & Language, 9(2), 124–162. doi: 10.1111/j.1468‑0017.1994.tb00220.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.1994.tb00220.x [Google Scholar]
  2. Baicchi, A. , & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
    (2010) The cognitive grounding of illocutionary constructions within the theoritecal perspective of the Lexical Constructional Model. Textus: English Studies in Italy, 3, 543–563.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Blakemore, D.
    (2002) Relevance and linguistic meaning : The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511486456
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486456 [Google Scholar]
  4. Butler, C. S. , & Gonzálvez-García, F.
    (2014) Exploring functional-cognitive space. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.157
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.157 [Google Scholar]
  5. Del Campo, N.
    (2011) Cognitive modelling in illocutionary meaning. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9(2), 392–412. doi: 10.1075/rcl.9.2.03del
     https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.9.2.03del [Google Scholar]
  6. (2013) Illocutionary constructions in English : Cognitive motivation and linguistic realization. Bern: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Fillmore, C. J. , Kay, P. , & O’Connor, M. C.
    (1988) Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone . Language, 64(3), 501–538. doi: 10.2307/414531
     https://doi.org/10.2307/414531 [Google Scholar]
  8. Fraser, B.
    (2006) Towards a theory of discourse markers. In K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to discourse particles (pp.189–204). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. (2010) The sequencing of contrastive discourse markers in English. Baltic Journal of the English Language, Literature and Culture, 1, 29–35.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Galera, A. , & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
    (2014) Cognitive modeling: A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/resla.28.1.16bai
     https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.28.1.16bai [Google Scholar]
  11. Goldberg, A. E. , & Jackendoff, R.
    (2004) The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language, 80(3), 532–568. doi: 10.1353/lan.2004.0129
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2004.0129 [Google Scholar]
  12. Halliday, M. A. K.
    (1978) Language as social semiotic : The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Hannay, M. , Martínez Caro, E. , & Mackenzie, J. L.
    (2014)  Besides as a connective. In M. de los Á. Gómez González , F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza , F. Gonzálvez-García , & A. Downing (Eds.), The functional perspective on language and discourse: Applications and implications (pp.223–242). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.247.12han
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.247.12han [Google Scholar]
  14. Iza Erviti, A.
    (2015) Complementary alternation discourse constructions in English: A preliminary study. IJES (International Journal of English Studies), 1, 71–96. Retrieved from doi: 10.6018/ijes/2015/1/194941
     https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2015/1/194941 [Google Scholar]
  15. Lakoff, G.
    (1993) The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013 [Google Scholar]
  16. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. (1999) Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110800524
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110800524 [Google Scholar]
  18. Mairal, R. , & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
    (2009) Levels of description and explanation in meaning construction. In C. S. Butler & J. Martín Arista (Eds.), Deconstructing constructions (pp.153–198). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.107.08lev
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.107.08lev [Google Scholar]
  19. Panther, K. U. , & Thornburg, L.
    (2000) The effect for cause metonymy in English grammar. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads. A cognitive perspective (pp.215–231). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Pérez Hernández, L.
    (2001) The directive-commissive continuum. Miscelánea: A Journal of English and American Studies, 23, 77–98.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. (2009) Análisis léxico-construccional de los verbos de habla. A lexical-constructional analysis of verbs of speech. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a La Comunicación, 40, 62–92.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. (2012) Saying something for a particular purpose: Constructional compatibility and constructional families. RESLA (Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada), 25, 189–210.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. (2013) Illocutionary constructions: (multiple source)-in-target metonymies, illocutionary ICMs, and specification links. Language & Communication, 33(2), 128–149. doi: 10.1016/j.langcom.2013.02.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2013.02.001 [Google Scholar]
  24. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. , & Baicchi, A.
    (2007) Illocutionary constructions: Cognitive motivation and linguistic realization. In I. Kecskes & L. Horn (Eds.), Explorations in Pragmatics: Linguistic, cognitive, and intercultural aspects (pp.95–128). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. , & Gómez-González, M. A.
    (2014) Constructing discourse and discourse constructions Francisco. In M. A. Gómez-González , F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza , & F. Gonzálvez-García (Eds.), Theory and practice in runctional-cognitive space (pp.295–314). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sfsl.68.13rui
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.68.13rui [Google Scholar]
  26. Schiffin, D.
    (1987) Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511611841
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841 [Google Scholar]
  27. Sperber, D. , & Wilson, D.
    (1986) Relevance : Communication and cognition (2nd edition). Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Stefanowitsch, A.
    (2003) A construction-based approach to indirect speech acts. In K. -U. Panther & L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (pp.105–126). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.113.09ste
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.113.09ste [Google Scholar]
  29. The British national corpus, version 3 (BNC XML Edition)
    The British national corpus, version 3 (BNC XML Edition) 2007 Distributed by Oxford University Computing Services on behalf of the BNC Consortium. URL: www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/
  30. Thesaurus.com
    Thesaurus.com . URL: www.thesaurus.com/
  31. WebCorp
    WebCorp . URL: www.webcorp.org.uk/live/
  32. Wordreference.com
    Wordreference.com . URL: www.wordreference.com/
/content/journals/10.1075/resla.30.1.09iza
Loading
An exploratory study of complementary contrastive discourse constructions in English
Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics 30, 210 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.30.1.09iza
/content/journals/10.1075/resla.30.1.09iza
/content/journals/10.1075/resla.30.1.09iza
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): active zone; complementary contrast; construcciones discursivas; construction grammar; contraste complementario; discourse constructions; gramática de construcciones; perfil; profile; zona activa

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