By Sonia Cristofaro

ISBN-10: 0199252793

ISBN-13: 9780199252794

ISBN-10: 0199282005

ISBN-13: 9780199282005

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.

Show description

Read Online or Download Subordination (Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory) PDF

Similar grammar books

An introduction to cognitive linguistics - download pdf or read online

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.

Read e-book online Oxford Grammar for Schools 2 Teacher's book PDF

Point 2 - Cambridge English: MoversThe academics e-book at each point comprises the reply key, photocopiable exams and audio transcripts.

Additional info for Subordination (Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory)

Example text

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.

Download PDF sample

Subordination (Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory) by Sonia Cristofaro

by Kevin

Rated 4.10 of 5 – based on 10 votes