Карточка | Таблица | RUSMARC | |
Empirical studies of the construction of discourse / edited by Óscar Loureda, Inés Recio Fernández, Laura Nadal and Adriana Cruz. — 1 online resource. — (Pragmatics & beyond new series). — <URL:http://elib.fa.ru/ebsco/2228939.pdf>.Дата создания записи: 29.04.2019 Тематика: Discourse analysis — Case studies.; Discourse analysis. Коллекции: EBSCO Разрешенные действия: –
Действие 'Прочитать' будет доступно, если вы выполните вход в систему или будете работать с сайтом на компьютере в другой сети
Действие 'Загрузить' будет доступно, если вы выполните вход в систему или будете работать с сайтом на компьютере в другой сети
Группа: Анонимные пользователи Сеть: Интернет |
Права на использование объекта хранения
Место доступа | Группа пользователей | Действие | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Локальная сеть Финуниверситета | Все | |||||
Интернет | Читатели | |||||
Интернет | Анонимные пользователи |
Оглавление
- Empirical Studies of the Construction of Discourse
- Editorial page
- Title page
- Copyright page
- Table of contents
- Introduction
- References
- Part I. Corpus-based studies
- Chapter 1. Challenges in the contrastive study of discourse markers: Challenges in the contrastive study of discourse markers: The case of then
- 1. Introduction
- 2. Then in the left and the right periphery
- 3. The use of then in the left and the right periphery in authentic corpus examples
- 3. The use of then in the left and the right periphery in authentic corpus examples
- 4. Then in the left periphery
- 4.1 LP then as a connective adverbial stating the consequence of an event or circumstance in the preceding discourse
- 4.2 Then as a discourse marker indicating that an utterance is a deduction from what has been said in the preceding discourse
- 4.3 Then as a discourse marker in non-declarative utterances indicating that a request or a question is warranted by the preceding discourse
- 5. Then in the right periphery
- 5.1 RP then in questions
- 5.2 Then in assertions expressing modal uncertainty
- 5.3 RP then in requests for action with a mitigating function
- 5.4 RP then commenting on what has been said by adding a modification
- 5.5 RP then with textual functions on the information structure level
- 5.6 Summarising then as a modal particle in the right periphery
- 6. Some cross-linguistic similarities and differences: A comparison between English then and Swedish då in the right periphery
- 6.1 RP då in questions
- a. Då in wh-questions
- b. Då in yes-no questions
- c. Då in conclusions in the form of declarative sentences
- 6.2 Då in imperatives with a strengthening or weakening effect
- 6.3 Då in utterances signalling conclusion
- 6.1 RP då in questions
- 7. German correspondences of English then in final position
- a. Then translated by denn in questions
- b. Then in questions having declarative form (indicating a conclusion and a request for confirmation)
- b. Then in questions having declarative form (indicating a conclusion and a request for confirmation)
- c. Then in imperatives (justified requests)
- 8. Conclusion
- References
- Appendix. Texts used in the investigation (English and Swedish original texts)
- Appendix. Texts used in the investigation (English and Swedish original texts)
- Chapter 2. Local vs. global scope of discourse markers: Corpus-based evidence from syntax and co-occurring pausesCorpus-based evidence from syntax and co-occurring pauses
- 1. Introduction
- 2. Accessing DM scope through direct and indirect evidence
- 3. DisFrEn: Corpus and annotation
- 4. Syntax and pauses as indirect measures of DM scope
- 4.1 Function-specific: Topic-shifting vs. topic-resuming
- 4.2 POS-specific: Subordination vs. coordination
- 4.3 DM-specific: So expressing consequence vs. conclusion
- 5. Summary and discussion
- References
- Chapter 3. Prosodic versatility, hierarchical rank and pragmatic function in conversational markers
- 1. Introduction
- 2. Markers and Val.Es.Co.’s units system
- 2.1 Dialogical level and monological level
- 2.2 Towards a typology of the subact: Substantive subacts and adjacent subacts
- 2.2 Towards a typology of the subact: Substantive subacts and adjacent subacts
- 2.2.1 Substantive subacts (SS)
- 2.2.2 Adjacent subacts (AS)
- 3. The complex relationship between markers and adjacent subacts
- 3.1 Context of use and structural status of the adjacent subact
- 3.2 Prosodic enhancement/non-enhancement, structural relevance and polyfunctionality of discourse markers at the monological level
- 3.2 Prosodic enhancement/non-enhancement, structural relevance and polyfunctionality of discourse markers at the monological level
- 4. Methodological approach
- 4.1 Reference corpus and markers under study
- 4.2 Prosodic analysis of bueno and hombre
- 4.2.1 Background
- 4.2.2 Methodological approach
- 5. Analysis and discussion of results
- 5.1 Analysis of bueno
- 5.1.1 Cross-tabulation of the variables unit/function/contour/toneme
- 5.1.2 Cross-tabulation of the variables unit/function/pause
- 5.1.3 Cross-tabulation of the variables unit/function/adjustment
- 5.1.4 Cross-tabulation of the variables unit/function/position
- 5.2 Analysis of hombre
- 5.2.1 Cross-tabulation of the variables unit/function/contour/toneme
- 5.2.2 Cross-tabulation of the variables unit/function/pause
- 5.2.3 Cross-tabulation of the variables unit/function/adjustment
- 5.2.4 Cross-tabulation of the variables unit/function/position
- 5.1 Analysis of bueno
- 6. Conclusions
- Acknowledgements
- References
- Chapter 4. A preliminary typology of interactional figures based on a tool for visualizing conversational structure
- 1. Introduction
- 1.1 The Val.Es.Co segmentation model
- 1.2 Visualization tools for linguistic data: Val.Es.Co. Visualization Tool
- 2. Methodology
- 3. A preliminary typology of interactional figures
- 3.1 Peak: Independent exchange
- 3.2 Zipper: Consecutive reactive-initiative interventions
- 3.3 Rake: Discontinuous intervention
- 3.4 Sticks: Parallel discontinuous interventions
- 3.5 Fence: Frame exchange
- 3.5.1 Closed fence
- 3.5.2 Open fence
- 3.5.3 Free fence
- 3.6 Line: Independent intervention
- 3.7 Comb: Series of independent interventions
- 4. Discussion and conclusions
- 4.1 Some thoughts on the notion of figure
- 4.2 Our figures versus previously studied phenomena at the level of interactional structure
- 4.2 Our figures versus previously studied phenomena at the level of interactional structure
- 4.3 Partial and global descriptions of structural interactional phenomena
- References
- 1. Introduction
- Chapter 5. Causal relations between discourse and grammar: Causal relations between discourse and grammar: Because in spoken French and Dutch
- 1. Introduction
- 2. Causal connectives, subjectivity and discourse
- 3. Parce que in grammar and discourse
- 3.1 Microsyntactic and macrosyntactic parce que
- 3.2 Conjunctive and DM parce que in discourse
- 3.2.1 Parce que: Prosodic patterns
- 3.2.2 Parce que: Disfluencies and production phenomena
- 3.2.3 Parce que and co-referential chains
- 3.2.4 Parce que and turn management
- 3.3 Parce que: Preliminary conclusion
- 4. V2-omdat in (spontaneous) spoken Dutch
- 4.1 The syntactic status of V2-omdat
- 4.2 The semantic status of V2-omdat
- 4.3 The discourse status of V2-omdat
- 4.4 Preliminary conclusion on omdat
- 5. Discussion and conclusion
- Acknowledgements
- References
- Chapter 6. A corpus-based comparative study of concessive connectives in English, German and Spanish: A corpus-based comparative study of concessive connectives in English, German and Spanish: A corpus-based comparative study of concessive connectives in
- 1. Introduction
- 2. Data and annotation
- 3. Theoretical background: Concessivity
- 3.1 A probabilistic definition of concessivity
- 3.2 Concessives vs. adversatives
- 4. Functional types of concessives: Variables for the empirical analysis
- 4.1 Canonical vs. relativizing concessives
- 4.2 Levels of linking
- 4.3 The givenness status of the concession
- 4.4 The topic-comment structure of concessive sentences
- 4.5 Summary
- 5. Quantitative analyses
- 5.1 Basic types: Canonical concessives, relativizing concessives and concessive adversatives
- 5.1 Basic types: Canonical concessives, relativizing concessives and concessive adversatives
- 5.2 Levels of linking
- 5.3 The givenness status of the concession
- 5.4 The topic-comment structure of concessive sentences
- 5.5 Summary
- 6. Structural properties of concessive clauses
- 7. Combining functional and structural variables
- 8. Discussion and conclusions
- References
- Chapter 1. Challenges in the contrastive study of discourse markers: Challenges in the contrastive study of discourse markers: The case of then
- Part II. Experiment-based studies
- Chapter 7. Processing patterns of focusing in Spanish
- 1. Different kinds of focusing
- 2. Experimental design
- 2.1 Independent variables, areas of interest and hypotheses
- 2.2 Dependent variables
- 2.3 Participants, apparatus and procedure
- 2.4 Stimuli
- 2.5 Statistical treatment
- 3. Results and discussion
- 3.1 Global comparison
- 3.1.1
- 3.1.2
- 3.2 Comparison of focusing areas
- 3.2.1
- 3.2.2
- 3.2.3
- 3.2.4
- 3.2.5
- 3.2.6
- 3.3 The comprehension of the contrastive implicatures of unmarked and marked focus structures
- 3.1 Global comparison
- 4. Conclusions
- References
- Appendix 1. Mixed models
- Appendix 2. Norming study
- Appendix 3. List of experimental items
- Chapter 8. Expectation changes over time: How long it takes to process focus imposed by German sogarHow long it takes to process focus imposed by German sogar
- 1. Introduction
- 2. Focus particles
- 3. Overview of the experiments in the current study
- 3.1 Experiment 1: Determining the degree of expectation change
- 3.1.1 Method
- 3.1.2 Results
- 3.1.3 Discussion
- 3.2 Experiment 2: Online processing of expectation change induced by sogar
- 3.2 Experiment 2: Online processing of expectation change induced by sogar
- 3.2.1 Method
- 3.2.2 Results
- 3.2.3 Discussion
- 3.1 Experiment 1: Determining the degree of expectation change
- 4. General discussion
- Acknowledgements
- References
- Appendix 1. Experimental items
- Chapter 9. Processing implicit and explicit causality in Spanish: Processing implicit and explicit causality in Spanish
- 1. Introduction
- 2. Implicit versus explicit causality
- 2.1 Discourse and argumentative contents
- 2.2 Por tanto as a causal connective
- 3. Processing study
- 3.1 Materials
- 3.2 Dependent variables
- 3.3 Participants, apparatus and procedure
- 3.4 Experiment design
- 3.5 Statistical treatment
- 4. Results
- 4.1 Total reading time
- 4.2 First-pass reading time
- 4.3 Second-pass reading time
- 5. Conclusions
- Acknowledgements
- References
- Appendix 1. Example of the first experimental list
- Appendix 2. Mixed models
- Part III. Combined approaches
- Chapter 10. Subjectivity and Causality in discourse and cognition: Subjectivity and Causality in discourse and cognition: Evidence from corpus analyses, acquisition and processingEvidence from corpus analyses, acquisition and processing
- 1. Discourse, coherence and subjectivity
- 2. Subjectivity in written language use
- 2.1 How Subjectivity defines categories of Dutch causal connectives
- 2.2 How Subjectivity is relevant cross-linguistically
- 3. Subjectivity in other types of language use
- 3.1 Connectives in corpora of language use
- 3.2 Subjectivity in spoken language
- 4. Subjectivity in the processing of coherence relations
- 5. Subjectivity in language development
- 6. Conclusion and future developments
- References
- Chapter 11. Subjectivity of English connectives: A corpus and experimental investigation of result forward causality signals in written language
- 1. Introduction and background
- 2. Corpus study
- 2.1 Material and methods
- 2.1.1 Coding for result relation types
- 2.2 Results
- 2.1 Material and methods
- 3. Experimental study
- 3.1 Sentence completion task for obtaining stereotypical instances of Volitional and Non-volitional result
- 3.2 Experiment 1: Testing the effect of an SoC and the connective presence on the relation identification
- 3.2.1 Method
- 3.2.2 Results
- 4. Discussion and conclusions
- References
- Chapter 7. Processing patterns of focusing in Spanish
- Index
Статистика использования
Количество обращений: 0
За последние 30 дней: 0 Подробная статистика |