By Sonia Cristofaro
This ebook provides a typology of subordination platforms around the world's languages. conventional definitions of subordination are according to morphosyntactic standards, reminiscent of clausal embedding or non-finiteness. The booklet exhibits that those definitions are untenable in a cross-linguistic viewpoint, and offers a cognitively dependent definition of subordination.
Read Online or Download Subordination (Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory) PDF
Similar grammar books
Studying approximately Language is an exhilarating and impressive sequence of introductions to primary issues in language, linguistics and comparable components. The books are designed for college students of linguistics and those that are learning language as a part of a much broader path. Cognitive Linguistics explores the concept language displays our event of the area.
Point 2 - Cambridge English: MoversThe academics e-book at each point comprises the reply key, photocopiable exams and audio transcripts.
- Negation and Polarity: Syntactic and Symantic Perspectives
- Suppletion in Verb Paradigms: Bits and Pieces of the Puzzle
- A cognitive linguistic analysis of the English imperative : with special reference to Japanese imperatives
- A grammar of the Kaffir language
- Essentials of Functional Grammar: A Structure-Neutral Theory of Movement, Control, and Anaphora
Additional info for Subordination (Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory)
Langacker’s deﬁnition of subordination assumes an asymmetrical cognitive relation between SoAs, such that one SoA imposes its own proﬁle over the whole sentence, while the other SoA lacks an autonomous proﬁle. 6 It seems reasonable to assume that the SoA imposing its proﬁle over the whole sentence corresponds to what the sentence is meant to communicate, that is the assertional part of the sentence. 20) above). Hence, an SoA having an autonomous proﬁle is an asserted SoA, while an SoA lacking an autonomous proﬁle is a non-asserted SoA.
It is quite clear why only the asserted part of a sentence is open to challenge. An assertion is what the speaker wishes to communicate, or wants the hearer to know or take for granted, by uttering the sentence. Therefore, it may be relevant for the hearer to challenge it. On the other hand, it would make no sense for the hearer to challenge that part of the sentence that the speaker does not wish to communicate. The second type of assertiveness tests change the illocutionary force of the sentence.
6), Matthiessen and Thompson (1988), and Givón (1990: ch. 19) individuate distinct clause types, thus making it possible to concentrate the analysis on any one of them, Haiman and Thompson (1984) and Lehmann (1988) only provide a set of more or less freely combinable features. None of these features is distinctive for subordination. This means that, if one wants to select a crosslinguistically valid parameter for the analysis of subordination (whatever the sense given to this term), one has either to arbitrarily select individual features, which The Notion of Subordination 25 need not be present in all languages, or deal with clusters of features that need not occur in exactly the same way cross-linguistically.
Subordination (Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory) by Sonia Cristofaro