«-Ing» supplementive clauses and narrative discourse referents

  1. Martínez Martínez, María Ángeles
Journal:
IJES: international journal of English studies

ISSN: 1578-7044,  1989-6131

Year of publication: 2012

Issue Title: A new approach to literature: corpus linguistics

Volume: 12

Issue: 2

Pages: 73-91

Type: Article

DOI: 10.6018/IJES/2012/2/161761 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

More publications in: IJES: international journal of English studies

Sustainable development goals

Abstract

This study explores the connections between -ing supplementive clauses and narrative discourse foregrounding. Subordinate and, very particularly, non-finite clauses are prototypically associated to narrative background. Using a corpus of extracts from contemporary novels in English, this study, however, shows that this type of subordination displays a predominance of grammatically highlighting features, namely assertive modality, active transitivity processes, and the foregrounded focalizer as most frequent implicit subject. This fact may prove of relevance to both linguistics and literature, as it not only provides a discourse-based cognitive explanation for the apparent incorrecteness of non-co-referential implicit subjects, as in ¿Leaving the forest, the scent of the trees surrounded them¿ (Biber et al., 2010: 829), but also suggests that -ing supplementives might intervene in narrative foregrounding, syntactically realizing some of the highlighting devices mentioned in cognitive approaches to the study of language at large (Brisard, 2002; Cristofaro, 2005; Kita, 2008; Talmy, 2000a; Talmy, 2000b), and literary discourse in particular (Tsur, 2009).

Bibliographic References

  • Auster, P. (2007). Travels in the Scriptorium. London: Faber and Faber.
  • Austin, P. (1975). How To Do Things With Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Biber, D. (1995). Dimensions of Register Variation. A Cross-Linguistic Comparison. Cambridge:
  • Biber, D., Connor, U. & Upton, T. A. (2007). Discourse on the Move: Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Corpus Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E. (2010). Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.
  • Brisard, F. (2002). Grounding: The Epistemic Footing of Deixis and Reference. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Brône, G. & Vandaele, J. (2009). Cognitive Poetics: Goals, Gains and Gaps. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Bybee, J. L., Perkins, R. & Pagliuca, W. (1994). The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Carter, R. & McCarthy, M. (2006). Cambridge Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Cristofaro, S. (2005). Subordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Deignan, A. (2005). Metaphor and Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Duchan, J. F., Bruder, G. A. & Hewitt, L. E. (1995). Deixis in Narrative: a Cognitive Science Perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.
  • Durrell, L. (1968). The Alexandria Quartet. London: Faber and Faber.
  • Emmott, C. (1992). Splitting the referent: an introduction to narrative enactors. In M. Davies & L. Ravelli (Eds.), Advances in Systemic Linguistics: Recent Theory and Practice (pp. 221-228). London: Pinter.
  • Emmott, C. (1999). Narrative Comprehension: A Discourse Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Fitzpatrick, E. (2007). Corpus Linguistics Beyond the Word: Corpus Research from Phrase to Discourse. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
  • Gavins, J. & Steen, G. (2003). Cognitive Poetics in Practice. Oxon: Routledge.
  • Geeraerts, D. & Cuyckens, H. (2007). The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Genette, G. (1980). Narrative Discourse. An Essay in Method. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
  • Greenbaum, S. & Quirk, R. (2007). A Student’s Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
  • Halliday, M. A. K. (1967). Notes on transitivity and theme in English. Parts 1, 2, and 3. Journal of Linguistics 3.1, 3.2, & 4.2 1967/68, 37-81/199-244 and 179-215.
  • Halliday, M. A. K. (1971). Linguistic function and literary style: an inquiry into the language of William Golding’s The Inheritors. In S. Chatman (Ed.), Literary Style: A Symposium (pp. 330- 368). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Halliday, M. A. K. (2000). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
  • Halliday, M. A. K. & Matthiessen, C. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Hoddar-Arnold.
  • Hengeveld, K. (1997). The Theory of Functional Grammar. Part 2. Complex and Derived Constructions. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Herman, D., Jahn, M. & Ryan, M. (Eds.). (2008). Routledge Encyclopedia of Narrative Theory. New York: Routledge.
  • Hewitt, L. E. (1995). Anaphor in subjective contexts in narrative fiction. In J. F. Duchan, G. Bruder & L. E. Hewitt (Eds.), Deixis in Narrative. A Cognitive Science Perspective (pp. 325-339). Hillsdale, NY: Lawrence and Earlbaum.
  • Hopper, P. J. (1979). Aspect and foregrounding in discourse. In T. Givón (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol.12. Discourse and Syntax (pp. 213-241). London: Academic Press.
  • Hopper, P. J. & Thompson, S. (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56(2), 251- 299.
  • Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G. (2007). A Student’s Introduction to English Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Huston, A. C. (1985). Continuity and Change in English Morphology: the Variable (ING). Cambridge.
  • Kita, S. (2008). Figure-Ground indeterminacy in descriptions of spatial relations: A construction grammar account. In M. Bowerman & P. Brown (Eds.), Crosslinguistic Perspectives on Argument Structure. (pp. 89-109). London: Lawrence Earlbaum.
  • Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representation of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Lambrou, M. & Stockwell, P. (2007). Contemporary Stylistics. London, NY: Continuum.
  • Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. II. Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  • Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • MacEwan, I. (2005). Amsterdam. London: Vintage.
  • Martínez, M. A. (2002). From “Under the Rose” to “V”: A linguistic approach to human agency in Pynchon’s fiction. Poetics Today, 23(4), 633-656.
  • Montgomery, M. (1993). Language, character, and action: A linguistic approach to the analysis of character in a Hemingway short story. In J.M. Sinclair, M. Hoey & G. Fox (Eds.), Spoken and Written Discourse (pp. 127-142). London: Routledge.
  • Nordström, J. (2010). Modality and Subordinators. Amsterdam, Phil.: John Benjamins.
  • Palmer, F. R. (2003). Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Pynchon, T. (1985). Under the Rose. In T. Pynchon, Slow Learner. (pp. 95-131). London: Pan Books.
  • Rong, R. (2011). Contextual frame theory and monitoring flashbacks. Online Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Poetics and Linguistics Association (PALA).
  • Semino, E. & Culpeper, J. (2002). Cognitive Stylistics: Language and Cognition in Text Analysis. Amsterdam, Phil.: John Benjamins.
  • Shen, D. (2007). Internal contrast and double decoding: transitivity in Hughes’s “On the Road”. Journal of Literary Semantics, 36, 53-70.
  • Sidner, C. L. (1983). Focusing in the comprehension of definite anaphora. In M. Brady & R. C. Berwick (Eds.), Computational Models of Discourse (pp. 267-328). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
  • Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Stockwell, P. (2002). Cognitive Poetics. An Introduction. London: Routledge.
  • Talmy, L. (1978). Figure and Ground in complex sentences. In J.H. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of Human language. Vol. 4. Syntax. (pp. 625-649). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  • Talmy, L. (2000a). Toward a Cognitive Semantics Vol. I: Concept and Structuring Systems. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
  • Talmy, L. (2000b). Toward a Cognitive Semantics Vol.II: Typology and Process in Concept Structuring. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
  • Thompson, S. A. (1987). “Subordination” and narrative event structure. In R. S. Tomlin (Ed.), Coherence and Grounding in Discourse. (pp. 435-454). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John
  • Tognini-Bonelli, E. (1996). Corpus Linguistics at Work. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Tsur, R. (2009). Metaphor and figure-ground relationship: comparisons for poetry, music, and the arts. In G. Brône & J. Vandaele (Eds.), Cognitive Poetics: Goals, Gains, and Gaps. Berlin. Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Ungerer, F. & Schmid, H. (1996). An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. London and New York: Longman.
  • van Gelderen, E. (2002). An Introduction to the Grammar of English. Amsterdam, Phil.: John
  • Vernon, M. D. (1970). The Psychology of Perception. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
  • Wallace, D. F. (2009). Infinite Jest. London: Abacus.
  • Wallace, S. (1982). Figure and Ground: the interrelationship of linguistic categories. In P. J. Hopper (Ed.), Tense-Aspect: Between Semantics and Pragmatics (pp. 201-223). Amsterdam, Phil.: John
Data source: Dialnet