- Home
- e-Journals
- Pragmatics
- Previous Issues
- Volume 10, Issue, 2000
Pragmatics - Volume 10, Issue 3, 2000
Volume 10, Issue 3, 2000
-
Figuration, lexis and cultural resonance
Author(s): Jonathan Charteris-Blackpp.: 281–300 (20)More LessThis paper is a corpus based study of the cultural meaning of figuration in the Malay lexicon. Initially, polysemy is examined for evidence of figurative conceptualisation at the single word level for two body part terms, mata ‘the eye’ and kaki ‘the foot /leg’. Compound forms are then examined to identify the extent to which similar conceptualisations are found. Finally, figurative phraseological units (simpulan bahasd) are examined for figurative conceptualisations. We consider the relationship between figurative meaning at the phraseological and lexical levels. The identification of figurative language is made with reference to dictionaries and its saliency is gauged with reference to a corpus of contemporary Malay.
-
On the Spanish inferential construction ser que
Author(s): Gerald P. Delahunty and Laura Gatzkiewiczpp.: 301–322 (22)More LessSpanish (along with English and many other languages) has inferential sentences such as No es que no quiera: Es que no sabe querer, ‘It’s not that she doesn’t love; it’s that she doesn’t know how to love.’ We describe the grammar and pragmatics of these sentences and show how their pragmatic characteristics follow from their grammar and the principles of relevance theory. Inferentials consist of a finite clause embedded as the complement of an expletive copular matrix clause, which may be modified by a focusing particle and/or a negator. Inferentials function as metalinguistic devices which characterize the relevance of the proposition represented by their clause to the processing of an utterance. Negative inferentials characterize that proposition as likely to be considered in the processing but they deny its relevance; positive inferentials characterize the proposition as unlikely to be considered but they assert its relevance. The inferential proposition may be interpreted as an implicated premise or conclusion. If it is taken as an implicated premise then it may be further interpreted as an explanation, reason, or cause; if it is taken as an implicated conclusion then it may be further interpreted as a result, consequence, or conclusion. It may also be taken as a (re)interpretation or reformulation of the target utterance.
-
Disagreements in television discussions
Author(s): Alexandra Georgakopoulou and Marianna Patronapp.: 323–338 (16)More LessBased on a case study, this paper explores the interaction between the act of disagreeing and the contextual parameters of Greek television panel discussions. The analysis of the data reveals that, in contrast to previous literature on disagreements in TV interview situations, the disagreements at hand are both (host)-unmediated and rendered less dispreferred by being delayed, indirectly posed, and/or mitigated. The discussion sheds light on the systematic ways in which the above is sequentially achieved so as to suit the parameters of the given context. It is argued that the preference features that accompany disagreements attend to the specialized floor-holding and turn-taking rights as well as to the public occasion of the interactions. As such, they index the participants’ management and negotiation of their roles and identities as interviewees, interlocutors, and public speakers.
Volumes & issues
-
Volume 35 (2025)
-
Volume 34 (2024)
-
Volume 33 (2023)
-
Volume 32 (2022)
-
Volume 31 (2021)
-
Volume 30 (2020)
-
Volume 29 (2019)
-
Volume 28 (2018)
-
Volume 27 (2017)
-
Volume 26 (2016)
-
Volume 25 (2015)
-
Volume 24 (2014)
-
Volume 23 (2013)
-
Volume 22 (2012)
-
Volume 21 (2011)
-
Volume 20 (2010)
-
Volume 19 (2009)
-
Volume 18 (2008)
-
Volume 17 (2007)
-
Volume 16 (2006)
-
Volume 15 (2005)
-
Volume 14 (2004)
-
Volume 13 (2003)
-
Volume 12 (2002)
-
Volume 11 (2001)
-
Volume 10 (2000)
-
Volume 9 (1999)
-
Volume 8 (1998)
-
Volume 7 (1997)
-
Volume 6 (1996)
-
Volume 5 (1995)
-
Volume 4 (1994)
-
Volume 3 (1993)
-
Volume 2 (1992)
-
Volume 1 (1991)
Most Read This Month

-
-
Pragmatic markers
Author(s): Bruce Fraser
-
-
-
Learning to think for speaking
Author(s): Dan I. Slobin
-
-
-
Language ideology
Author(s): Kathryn A. Woolard
-
- More Less