Functions of Language - Online First

This paper examines nominalisation in scientific discourse in English, focusing on a distinction between what I will refer to as ‘live’ and ‘dead’ grammatical metaphors. Live metaphors refer to a nominal realisation of an ideational discourse semantic figure; dead metaphors are found in the same nominalisations as live metaphors, but they realise an entity rather than a figure. The distinction is made by drawing on a tristratal approach that is informed by Systemic Functional Linguistics and that considers nominalisation simultaneously from the perspectives of field, discourse semantics, and lexicogrammar. Although the paper focuses on nominalisation, it illustrates a broader line of argumentation that can be extended to the analysis of ideational discourse semantic meanings in general.

This paper reports on a corpus study of two ditransitive constructions in Enets (Uralic, Samoyedic): the standard ditransitive construction and the so-called Destinative construction involving a specific destinative nominal morpheme. We suggest that the mutual distribution of the two competing constructions depends on referential properties of theme and information structure of the clause. The Destinative construction is used when a theme is indefinite, the standard ditransitive construction is used when a theme is definite. Most often, definiteness of a theme is also accompanied by specificity of a recipient; the combination of an indefinite theme and a non-specific recipient has not been attested at all. There is also a small number of cases when the standard ditransitive construction is used in clauses with an indefinite theme: in all such cases recipients are non-standard from the information structure point of view, they are either topical, emphatic, or extraposed. We suggest that both contexts of usage of the standard ditransitive construction can be explained if we describe its main discourse function as highlighting the known referents in discourse, be it definite themes or topical, emphatic, or extraposed recipients. The main discourse function of the destinative construction is then introducing new referents in the theme position.

Motivated by the frequent omission of interjections from film subtitles, this study investigates the interpersonal functions of interjections, and seeks to disentangle their meaning relations. Based on the analysis of interjections from six English language films under the theoretical framework of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), the study primarily classifies the functions of interjections in terms of whether the interjections independently realize moves in exchange. The function of the interjection which realizes a move on its own is described at the semantic stratum in terms of a minor speech function, and the function of the interjection which realizes a move together with a clause is described at the lexicogrammatical stratum in terms of an optional clausal function referred to as a ‘latched function’. The study highlights the distinction between latched functions and their agnate minor speech functions, and offers more delicate accounts of the functions of interjections. It proposes a system network of the minor speech functions, which can facilitate a more systematic analysis of the functions realized by interjections. This study contributes to the SFL description of English interjections, and can offer methodological insights into further research on the functionality of interjections.

Exclamative expressions like What an enormous crowd came! and How wonderful this journey is! have been described as forming one of the four basic sentence (or clause) types of English. The present paper discusses the main features of this type and analyzes them with reference to the framework of Discourse Grammar. It is argued that the structure of exclamatives can be related to other sentence types in terms of discourse strategies that are used for constructing texts, in particular by means of cooptation, a cognitive-communicative strategy that enables speakers to use existing text pieces for new discourse functions.

Complement clauses of verbs of fear often contain expletive negation, which is negative marking without negative meaning. Expletive negation in fear-complements regularly co-occurs with non-indicative moods, such as subjunctive, conjunctive, or conditional. The aim of this paper is to provide a diachronic explanation for the phenomenon of expletive negation in complement clauses of fear-verbs. Based on data from various languages, I will show that cases of expletive negation after verbs of fear can be divided into several groups, each with a different origin. Fear complement clauses can derive from embedded polar questions, paratactic constructions expressing a wish, or from negative purpose clauses. Complement clauses with polar questions usually contain an indicative verb form, while clauses based on the expression of a wish often have non-indicative verb forms. The paper also discusses cases in which expletive negation is lost.

This paper studies practices of indexing discrepant assumptions accomplished by turn-constructional units with ich dachte (‘I thought’) in German talk-in-interaction. Building on the analysis of 141 instances from the corpus FOLK, we identify three sequential environments in which ich dachte is used to index that an assumption which a speaker (has) held contrasts with some other, contextually salient assumption. We show that practices which have been studied for English I thought are also routinely used in German: ich dachte is a means to manage epistemic incongruencies and to contrast an incorrect with a correct assumption in narratives. In addition, ich dachte is also used to account for the speaker’s own prior actions which may have looked problematic because they built on misunderstandings which the speaker only discovered later. Moreover, ich dachte-practices may also be used to create comic effects by reporting an earlier, absurd assumption. The practices are discussed with regard to their role in regaining common ground, in managing relationships, in maintaining the identity of a rational actor, and in terms of their exploitation for other conversational interests. Special attention is paid to how co-occurring linguistic features, and sequential and pragmatic factors, account for local interpretations of ich dachte.

Well is an exemplary multi-functional word performing pragmatic and syntactic functions. That multi-functionality poses a potential problem: How do hearers in conversation determine which function is actualized and how do speakers project the function actualized? We address both questions examining factors hearers rely on to disambiguate well and the resources speakers deploy to designate well’s function. The study is based on 8-, 9-, and 10-word turns containing well extracted from the British National Corpus for which audio files from the Audio BNC are available. We include duration, measuring well’s durations in Praat. The workflow comprised both qualitative and quantitative methods. Qualitatively, all turns were manually inspected and the functions and subfunctions of well were identified. Due to data paucity the quantitative analysis was based only on a broad distinction between syntactic and pragmatic functions. The analysis involved two logistic regression model selection processes, one adopting a hearer, one a speaker perspective. Based on the factors position in the turn, duration and lexical context, our final models indicate that hearers disambiguate the two main functions of well drawing on lexical context and position in the turn while speakers project well’s functions by modulating duration. We propose that Hoey’s (2005) 6th priming hypothesis, concerned with polysemy, can be extended to also include polyfunctionality. Position also suggests a reading in terms of Hoey’s ‘textual colligation’ hypothesis related to a word’s position: particularly in its incarnation as a marker of dispreferreds, pragmatic well is heavily primed to occur turn-initially.