19 International Symposium on Theoretical and Applied Linguistics ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

G E N E R A L S E S S I O N The above-mentioned dictionary and grammars are applied to a large coverage text, which was constructed of articles of the electronic newspaper Έθνος. The annotation structure of this corpus is presented, thoroughly, in the NooJ platform. Future work will focus, on the one hand, on the extension of the macrostructure of the electronic dictionary and, on the other, on the addition of syntactic and morphological grammars that would improve the automatic recognition of texts. References GROSS, G., <strong>19</strong>92. Forme d'un dictionnaire électronique. Actes du colloque La station de traduction de l'an 2000. Mons. GROSS, M., <strong>19</strong>75. Méthodes en syntaxe. Paris, Hermann. GROSS, M., <strong>19</strong>95. Quelques considérations sur les marques sémantiques d’un dictionnaire électronique. Lexiques-grammaires comparés et traitements automatiques. UQAM, Montréal. MEL’ČUK, I., <strong>19</strong>97. Vers une linguistique Sens-Texte. Leçon inaugurale, Collège de France, Chaire internationale. SILBERZTEIN, M. <strong>19</strong>93. Dictionnaires électorniques et analyse automatique de textes: le système INTEX. Paris, Masson. Prohibitive and hortative in Modern Greek: a Functional Discourse Grammar approach Maria Chondrogianni University of Westminster chondrom@wmin.ac.uk In this paper we are discussing Prohibitive and Hortative in Modern Greek and the way they are related to Subjunctive and Imperative, within the context of Functional Discourse Grammar (Hengeveld and Mackenzie 2008). Functional Discourse Grammar is a typological based structural functional theory of language, organised in a top-down manner. The way an utterance is built is analysed through the operation on four components; in the conceptual component, the speaker’s communicative intention initiates the utterance construction, in the grammatical component the utterance is formed, based on the Speaker’s communicative intention, while additional information (e.g. knowledge about the world) affecting the utterance is added in the contextual component, and phonological, writing or signing elements become apparent in the output component. Focusing on the grammatical component, we encounter four levels, the interpersonal level (associated with pragmatics), the representational level (associated to semantics) the morpho-syntactic level (associated to morphology and syntax) and the phonological level (phonology). We are particularly interested in the relationship between the interpersonal and the representational level; whereas grammatical moods, such as Subjunctive and Imperative, are clearly semantics driven, Prohibitive and Hortative point to a pragmatics-driven approach, part of the interpersonal level. Imperatives and Hortatives are often considered under the wider umbrella of optatives (e.g. Auwera, Dobrushina and Gussev 2005). Imperatives and Hortatives both relate to the Speaker’s expression of a wish about a future State of Affairs. If this State of Affairs does not depend on the Addressee, then we are dealing with a Hortative (ibid). We explore whether, in Modern Greek, prohibitives, as in example (1), are expressed through a surrogate form of imperative or a negative subjunctive, or whether µην ‘mhn’ can be argued acting as a prohibitive marker when used independently i.e. when it is not proceeded by the particle να ‘na’. 1. Μην πατάτε το πράσινο. Min patate to prasino. NEG walk-2PL the green Don’t walk on the grass. Although we consider Joseph’s (2002) view that µη ‘mh’ and µην ‘mhn’ might be two distinct forms, the former being used independently while the latter being proceeded by ‘na’ , we tend to agree, through our research, with Auwera’ s (2006) view that in languages there is a preference for distinct prohibitive markers. Hortative in Modern Greek is mainly introduced by the particle ας ‘as’, as in (2). 2. Ας µην πάµε στο πάρτυ. As mhn pame sto party. PRT NEG go-2PL to the party. Let’s not go to the party. <strong>19</strong> th ISTAL 8
G E N E R A L S E S S I O N The particle ‘as’ introduces main clauses only, as opposed to the typical subjunctive particle να ‘na’ that introduces both main as well as subordinate subjunctives. We explore the distinct behaviour of ‘na’ and ‘as’, both in respect of their formal characteristics as well as of the differences in their use. We test whether ‘as’ can be associated to propositional uses only, whereas ‘na’ is related to a variety of behavioural uses. Extreme case formulations in Cypriot Greek Maria Christodoulidou Frederick University Cyprus pre.mc@fit.ac.cy This article is concerned with Extreme Case Formulations (ECFs) (Edwards, 2000; Pomerantz, <strong>19</strong>86) in spontaneous Cypriot Greek conversations. This study confirms the occurrence of ECFs in complaints as identified by Edwards (2000) Pomerantz (<strong>19</strong>86) but goes one step further to analyse the sequential and interaction work accomplished with ECFs in reporting “opposition-type stories” (Schegloff, <strong>19</strong>84). In the conversations examined here, complaining is expressed with the narration of two-party “opposition-type” stories in which the teller is one of the two parties involved. In particular, “opposition-type” stories are reported using the BCBC format, B being the teller and C his/her opponent. Thus, that BCBC format tracks not only the alternation of the turns but also the alternation of positions. This formula turns out to have C’s position be the one occupying the last turn (Schegloff, <strong>19</strong>84). By “reproducing the “original” utterance or utterances, speakers can provide access to the interaction being discussed, enabling the recipient to assess it for himself. Supplying this kind of evidence is important when...a complaint is made about someone based on what they said” (Holt, <strong>19</strong>96: 229). Thus in the conversations examined in this paper the oppositional story has its punchline in the reporting of an ECF attributed to the third non-present party. One thing the recipient can do is to side with one or the other, that is, teller/protagonist or his/her opponent. Usually recipients side with tellers because this is how tellers choose their story recipients (Schegloff, <strong>19</strong>84). In the cases here the reported ECF is responded to with a challenge taking the form of rhetorical question, extreme case formulation, idiomatic expression or ironic evaluation. To sum up the extracts examined in this paper revealed the following pattern: 1. Opposition-type stories BCBC 2. Punchline: Reporting C’s ECF 3. Recipient’s slot: Challenging the ECF {by non-literal means: rhetorical questions, ironic evaluations, impossible descriptions, repetitions of C’s ECF) References Edwards, D. 2000. Extreme case formulations: Softeners, investment, and doing nonliteral. In Research on Language and Social Interaction 33, 4, 347-373. Holt, E. <strong>19</strong>96. Reporting on talk: the use of direct reported speech inconversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 29, 3, 2<strong>19</strong>-245. Pomerantz, A. <strong>19</strong>86. Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies 9, 2<strong>19</strong>-230. Schegloff, E. A. <strong>19</strong>84. On some questions and ambiguities in conversation. In J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, 28-52. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Γλώσσα και ισχύς σε µια δίκη φόνου στην Κύπρο: η χρήση της ∆ιαλέκτου και η εναλλαγή κώδικα Γιώργος Β. Γεωργίου Πανεπιστήµιο Κύπρου giorgosv@otenettel.com Σχεδιασµός/µεθοδολογία/προσέγγιση: Η εισήγηση αυτή αναλύει ζητήµατα που έµειναν στην αφάνεια και σχετίζονται µε τη χρήση της γλώσσας στο δικαστήριο (όπως το θέµα της χρήσης της διαλέκτου στο δικαστήριο, αλλά και το ίδιο το ζήτηµα του εξουσιαστικού λόγου σε δοµηµένα, γλωσσικά περιβάλλοντα). Παρουσιάζεται µια µεµονωµένη δίκη φόνου (case study) και αναλύονται σηµαντικές πλευρές της διάδρασης µεταξύ των συµβαλλοµένων (δικαστή, µαρτύρων, δικηγόρων, κατηγορουµένων) ως προς τα υπό ανάλυση στοιχεία. Η προτεινόµενη ανάλυση βασίζεται στο µοντέλο <strong>19</strong> th ISTAL 9
Page 1 and 2: 19 th Inte
Page 3 and 4: G E N E R A L S E S S I O N Probing
Page 5 and 6: G E N E R A L S E S S I O N Alexiad
Page 7: G E N E R A L S E S S I O N Equival
Page 11 and 12: G E N E R A L S E S S I O N “Sket
Page 13 and 14: G E N E R A L S E S S I O N hypothe
Page 15 and 16: G E N E R A L S E S S I O N case be
Page 17 and 18: G E N E R A L S E S S I O N The pre
Page 19 and 20: G E N E R A L S E S S I O N as thin
Page 21 and 22: G E N E R A L S E S S I O N Bilingu
Page 23 and 24: G E N E R A L S E S S I O N υπο
Page 25 and 26: G E N E R A L S E S S I O N Note th
Page 27 and 28: G E N E R A L S E S S I O N Frazier
Page 29 and 30: G E N E R A L S E S S I O N (male /
Page 31 and 32: G E N E R A L S E S S I O N Learnin
Page 33 and 34: G E N E R A L S E S S I O N Ν. 369
Page 35 and 36: G E N E R A L S E S S I O N The rol
Page 37 and 38: G E N E R A L S E S S I O N Referen
Page 39 and 40: G E N E R A L S E S S I O N το γ
Page 41 and 42: G E N E R A L S E S S I O N Embick,
Page 43 and 44: G E N E R A L S E S S I O N On-line
Page 45 and 46: G E N E R A L S E S S I O N semanti
Page 47 and 48: G E N E R A L S E S S I O N Undoubt
Page 49 and 50: G E N E R A L S E S S I O N Lyons,
Page 51 and 52: G E N E R A L S E S S I O N [sp], [
Page 53 and 54: G E N E R A L S E S S I O N encount
Page 55 and 56: G E N E R A L S E S S I O N Asher a
Page 57 and 58: G E N E R A L S E S S I O N Teachin
Page 59 and 60:
G E N E R A L S E S S I O N L1 tran
Page 61 and 62:
G E N E R A L S E S S I O N Synchro
Page 63:
G E N E R A L S E S S I O N minorit
show all

19 International Symposium on Theoretical and Applied Linguistics ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?