Cooptation in Discourse Grammar: A Reconciliation Process between Sentence Grammar and Thetical Grammar

Document Type : .

Authors

Abstract

Discourse Grammar treats two separate but interrelated domains for discourse processing: Sentence Grammar (SG) and Thetical Grammar (TG). The former deals with the structure and meaning of sentences while the latter deals with the organization of discourse at the level beyond the sentence as well as the relationship between linguistic materials and the contextual situation of discourse. Cooptation as a cognitive process mediates between these two domains of language use. It encompasses linguistic elements such as a clause, phrase, word or other chunks of a text located in Sentence Grammar domain are transferred to the domain of TG providing a tool for coding components of the situation of discourse for which SG seems unable to facilitate the discourse function required. The present study investigates the process of cooptation and some unknown issues related to it. Moreover, it divides coopted units according to their structures of instantaneous, constructional and formulaic types. As far as their placement is concerned, coopted units can anchor either in their host utterance or in their context in four ways. In addition, certain motivations including mental processing, economy and iconicity are required in order to cooptation being operationalized. These motivations interact and compete with each other to organize the discourse in an appropriate way.

Keywords

Full Text

فایل پی دی اف را دریافت نمایید

References

آزموده، حسن، محمد عموزاده و والی رضایی (1396). «بررسی جابجایی بند موصولی در زبان فارسی امروز براساس دستور کلام». زبان پژوهی. دوره9، ش 24، 85-59.
آزموده، حسن، محمد عموزاده، والی رضایی و اسفندیار طاهری (1396). «سیر تکوینی بند موصولی تحدیدی در زبان فارسی». مجلۀ دستور. ج12، 215-193.
آزموده، حسن و محمد عموزاده (1396). «فرایند عضوگیری و بند موصولی در زبان فارسی». جستارهای زبانی. دوره 8، ش4 (39)، 263-239.
انوری، حسن و حسن احمدی گیوی (1378). دستور زبان فارسی. تهران: انتشارات فاطمی.
شریعت، محمدجواد (1366). دستور زبان فارسی. تهران: انتشارات اساطیر.
عموزاده، محمد و حسن آزموده (1393). «جنبه‌های دستور معترضه براساس نمونه‌هایی از زبان فارسی». نشریۀ پژوهش‌های زبان‌شناسی تطبیقی. س4، ش 7، 67-45.
عموزاده، محمد و اعظم نورا (1393). «دستوری‌شدگی عبارتِ یعنی ازمنظر دستور گفتمان». پژوهش‌های زبانی. س5، ش 1، 94-75.
Berman, S. M., M. A. Mandelkern, H. Phan, & E. Zaidel (2003). „Complementary hemispheric specialization for word and accent detection”. NeuroImage. 19, 319-31.
Blakemore, D. (2005). “And-parentheticals”. Journal of Pragmatics. 37, 1165-81.
Bolinger, D. (1989). Intonation and its Uses: Melody in Grammar and Discourse. London: Edward Arnold.
Clark, H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clark, H., F. Tree, & E. Jean (2002). “Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking”. Cognition. 84, 73–111.
Croft, W. (2003). (2nd edn). Typlogy and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dehé, N., & Y. Kavalova (eds.) (2007). Parentheticals. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Devinsky, O. (2000). “Right cerebral hemisphere dominance for a sense of corporeal and emotional self”. Epilepsy and Behavior. 1 (1), 60-73.
Dik, S. C. (1997). The Theory of Functional Grammar (Part 2: Complex and Derived Constructions). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dixon, R. M. W. (2005). A Semantic Approach to English Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Du Bois J. W. (1985). “Competing motivations”. Iconicity in Syntax. Proceedings of a symposium on iconicity in syntax. J. Haiman (ed.), Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins, 343–65.
Espinal, M. (1991). “The representation of disjunct constituents”. Language. 67, 726–62.
Haiman, J. (1983). “Iconic and economic motivation”. Language. 59, 781–819.
Heine, B. (2013). “On discourse markers: Grammaticalization, pragmaticalization, or something else?”. Linguistics. 51 (6), 1205-47.
Heine, B., G. Kaltenböck, T. Kuteva, & H. Long (2017). „Cooptation as a discourse strategy”. Linguistics: An Interdisciplinary Journal of the Language Sciences. 55 (4), 813-856.
Heine, B., G. Kaltenböck, T. Kuteva, & H. Long (2013). “An outline of Discourse Grammar”. Reflections on functionalism in linguistics. S. Bischoff & C. Jeny (eds.), Berlin & Boston: Mouton De Gruyter, 175-233.
Hilpert, M. (2013). Constructional Change in English: Developments in Allomorphy, Word-Formation, and Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kaltenböck, G. (2007). “Spoken parenthetical clauses in English”. Parentheticals. N. Dehé and Y. Kavalova (eds.), Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins, 25-52.
Kaltenböck, G., B. Heine, & T. Kuteva (2011). “On thetical grammar”. Studies in Language. 35(4), 848–893.
Kaltenböck, G., & B. Heine (2014). “Sentence grammar vs. thetical grammar: two competing domains”. Competing motivations in grammar and usage. B. MacWhinney, A. Malchukov, and E. Moravcsik (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 348-63.
Mazeland, H. (2007). “Parenthetical sequences”. Journal of Pragmatics. 39, 1816–69.
Mithun, M. (2008). “The extension of dependency beyond the sentence”. Language. 84 (1), 69–119.
Schneider, S. (2007). Reduced Parenthetical Clauses as Mitigators: A Corpus Study of Spoken French, Italian and Spanish. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Sherratt, S., & K. Bryan (2012). “Discourse production after right brain damage: Gaining a comprehensive picture using a multi-level processing model”. Journal of Neurolinguistics. 25, 213-39.
Traugott, E., & G. Trousdale (2013). Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics