![]() ![]() Modern linguistics has mainly treated the process from a theoretical perspective for its phonological characteristics, thereby often neglecting its likewise special morpho-semantic properties. more This chapter takes a fresh look at the status of reduplication in morphology. This chapter takes a fresh look at the status of reduplication in morphology. The resulting interface-based diversity of SVCs within FDG goes beyond the latter’s previous differentiation of merely ‘nuclear’, ‘core’ and ‘event serialization’. Adjacent level pairs of the Interpersonal, Representational, Morphosyntactic and Phonological Levels are checked for default relations and possible mismatches as they are found in different kinds of serial verbs according to varying parameters like eventhood, symmetry, contiguity and wordhood. Proceeding from this non-transparent many-to-one mapping between semantics (relating to complex Properties, States-of-Affairs and Episodes) and (morpho)syntax (relating to single Clauses and various manifestations of Verbal Words within them), an updated, more comprehensive FDG account of SVCs is developed. Given FDG’s top-down levels-and-layers architecture, the central feature of SVCs concerns a mismatch between the Representational Level and the Morphosyntactic Level. Drawing on earlier Functional (Discourse) Grammar work and various fragmentary contributions scattered throughout the FDG literature, a proposal is made on how the most prominent typological features of serial verbs can be captured by the specific set-up of the theory. ![]() ![]() The study serves as a test drive for FDG’s typological basis and contributes to what, with respect to the model, has been called ‘the interface issue’. more This chapter discusses serial verb constructions (SVCs) from a Functional Discourse Grammar (FDG) perspective. This chapter discusses serial verb constructions (SVCs) from a Functional Discourse Grammar (FDG). semantic) information, as well as its development into the non-compositional and purely pragmatic discourse marker "just so you know". pragmatic) and "so" representational (i.e. Furthermore, the analysis shows that FDG can model very precisely the interplay of semantic and pragmatic information in the stages when "just so" is still compositional, with "just" providing interpersonal (i.e. Using data from the Corpus of Contemporary American English and the Corpus of Historical American English, we argue that the different meanings of "just so" raise a number of issues related to the analysis of modification in FDG, namely the status and function of the modifier "just" in the constructions under discussion and the concomitant representation of "so". "just so" as a subordinator of purpose and condition), and finally, looking at the fixed expression "just so" used as a part of a pragmatic marker. the focus particle "just" modifying "so" as a degree word and a manner proform), then turning to more tightly-knit structures (i.e. In keeping with FDG's form-oriented function-to-form approach, the study proceeds semasiologically by, first, examining the uses of relatively independent forms (i.e. more This study traces the relationship between two erstwhile separate linguistic elements, "just" and "so", within the framework of Functional Discourse Grammar (FDG). ![]() This study traces the relationship between two erstwhile separate linguistic elements, "just" and. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |