Cover not available

Article published In: Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 30:1 (2017) ► pp.210–239

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

An exploratory study of complementary contrastive discourse constructions in English

 | University of La Rioja
Published online: 23 November 2017
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.30.1.09iza
Abstract
This paper studies the fundamental characteristics of a subgroup of members of the family of complementary-contrastive discourse constructions in English. Following Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Gómez-González, M. A. (2014). Constructing discourse and discourse constructions Francisco. In M. A. Gómez-González, F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza, & F. Gonzálvez-García (Eds.), Theory and practice in runctional-cognitive space (pp. 295–314). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar by discourse constructions this article refers to form-meaning pairings capturing relational meaning such as addition, exemplification, contrast, etc. grounded in high-level cognitive models. A discourse construction (e.g., X Let Alone Y; cf. Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone . Language, 64(3), 501–538. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar), generally consists of a fixed part and two variables, where the fixed part is a connector (a discourse marker or a conjunction). The constructions under scrutiny indicate a relation between two elements or situations in the world that are opposites but not exclusive of each other. Many of the members of this constructional family have frequently been treated as fully interchangeable in standard lexicographic practice. By contrast, this paper argues that each of these constructions introduces small but decisive changes in focal structure, resulting in important differences in meaning. Taking this evidence into account, the paper specifies the cases where one construction is used with preference over the others.
Resumen
El presente artículo estudia las características fundamentales de un subgrupo de miembros de la familia construccional contrastivo-complementaria a nivel discursivo en inglés. Siguiendo a Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Gómez-González, M. A. (2014). Constructing discourse and discourse constructions Francisco. In M. A. Gómez-González, F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza, & F. Gonzálvez-García (Eds.), Theory and practice in runctional-cognitive space (pp. 295–314). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, entendemos por construcciones discursivas emparejamientos de forma y significado que captan significado relacional como adición, ejemplificación, contraste, etc. sobre la base de modelos cognitivos de alto nivel. Las construcciones a nivel discursivo (e.j., X Let Alone Y; cf. Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone . Language, 64(3), 501–538. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) constan, en general, de una parte fija y dos variables, donde la parte fija es un conector (un marcador de discurso o una conjunción). Las construcciones analizadas indican una relación entre dos elementos contrarios o situaciones opuestas en el mundo, pero que al mismo tiempo no son excluyentes la una de la otra. Muchos de los miembros de esta familia construccional han sido tratados con frecuencia como totalmente intercambiables en la práctica lexicográfica común. Por el contrario, este trabajo sostiene que cada una de estas construcciones introduce pequeños pero decisivos cambios, dando lugar a importantes diferencias en significado. Tomando esto en consideración, el documento especifica los casos en los que una construcción es utilizada con preferencia sobre los demás.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Profiles and active zones in discourse constructions
  • 3.Complementary-contrastive constructions
  • 4.Concessive constructions
  • 5.Correcting constructions
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (32)
References
Bach, K. (1994). Conversational impliciture. Mind & Language, 9(2), 124–162. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baicchi, A., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2010). The cognitive grounding of illocutionary constructions within the theoritecal perspective of the Lexical Constructional Model. Textus: English Studies in Italy, 31, 543–563.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blakemore, D. (2002). Relevance and linguistic meaning : The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Butler, C. S., & Gonzálvez-García, F. (2014). Exploring functional-cognitive space. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Del Campo, N. (2011). Cognitive modelling in illocutionary meaning. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9(2), 392–412. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Illocutionary constructions in English : Cognitive motivation and linguistic realization. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone . Language, 64(3), 501–538. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fraser, B. (2006). Towards a theory of discourse markers. In K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to discourse particles (pp. 189–204). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). The sequencing of contrastive discourse markers in English. Baltic Journal of the English Language, Literature and Culture, 11, 29–35.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Galera, A., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2014). Cognitive modeling: A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., & Jackendoff, R. (2004). The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language, 80(3), 532–568. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic : The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hannay, M., Martínez Caro, E., & Mackenzie, J. L. (2014). Besides as a connective. In M. de los Á. Gómez González, F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. Gonzálvez-García, & A. Downing (Eds.), The functional perspective on language and discourse: Applications and implications (pp. 223–242). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Iza Erviti, A. (2015). Complementary alternation discourse constructions in English: A preliminary study. IJES (International Journal of English Studies), 11, 71–96. Retrieved from Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1999). Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mairal, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2009). Levels of description and explanation in meaning construction. In C. S. Butler & J. Martín Arista (Eds.), Deconstructing constructions (pp. 153–198). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Panther, K. U., & Thornburg, L. (2000). The effect for cause metonymy in English grammar. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads. A cognitive perspective (pp. 215–231). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pérez Hernández, L. (2001). The directive-commissive continuum. Miscelánea: A Journal of English and American Studies, 231, 77–98.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). Análisis léxico-construccional de los verbos de habla. A lexical-constructional analysis of verbs of speech. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a La Comunicación, 401, 62–92.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Saying something for a particular purpose: Constructional compatibility and constructional families. RESLA (Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada), 251, 189–210.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Illocutionary constructions: (multiple source)-in-target metonymies, illocutionary ICMs, and specification links. Language & Communication, 33(2), 128–149. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Baicchi, A. (2007). Illocutionary constructions: Cognitive motivation and linguistic realization. In I. Kecskes & L. Horn (Eds.), Explorations in Pragmatics: Linguistic, cognitive, and intercultural aspects (pp. 95–128). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Gómez-González, M. A. (2014). Constructing discourse and discourse constructions Francisco. In M. A. Gómez-González, F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza, & F. Gonzálvez-García (Eds.), Theory and practice in runctional-cognitive space (pp. 295–314). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schiffin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance : Communication and cognition (2nd edition). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. (2003). A construction-based approach to indirect speech acts. In K. -U. Panther & L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (pp. 105–126). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
The British national corpus, version 3 (BNC XML Edition). 2007. Distributed by Oxford University Computing Services on behalf of the BNC Consortium. URL: [URL]
Thesaurus.com. URL: [URL]
WebCorp. URL: [URL]
Wordreference.com. URL: [URL]
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue