-ING suplementive clauses and discourse prominence in literary journalism

  1. María Angeles Martínez Martínez 1
  1. 1 Universidad Complutense de Madrid
    info

    Universidad Complutense de Madrid

    Madrid, España

    ROR 02p0gd045

Revue:
Journal of English Studies

ISSN: 1576-6357

Année de publication: 2015

Número: 13

Pages: 83-108

Type: Article

DOI: 10.18172/JES.2809 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

D'autres publications dans: Journal of English Studies

Objectifs de Développement Durable

Résumé

This study explores the role of –ing supplementive clauses as markers of discourse prominence in literary journalism. These apparently minor linguistic units - “Using them as cups, they sip the filthy water” (Time,14 January 2013: 18) - stubbornly resist sentence-level syntactic and semantic description (Hengenveld 1997; Greenbaum and Quirk 2007; Huddleston and Pullum 2007: 207; Biber et al. 2010: 829). However, suprasentential studies within a cognitive-functional paradigm suggest that phenomena such as profiling (Verhaert 2006) and discourse prominence (Martínez 2012) may be crucial to their understanding. In the analysis, based on a collection of reportages from the American journal Time, these constructions actually seem to be frequently attached to the most prominent discourse entities, and to often combine with one another in the highlighting of sequences of logically connected events and situations. This indicates that they might intervene in referential and focus management in discourse.

Références bibliographiques

  • Afantenos, S., et al. 2012. “An empirical resource for discovering cognitive principles of discourse organisation: the ANNODIS corpus”. Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’12). European Language Resources Association ELRA. 2727-2734.
  • Abbott, H. P. 2015. “Narrativity”. the living handbook of narratology. Eds. Peter Hühn et al. Hamburg: Hamburg University Press.
  • Bell, A. 1991. The Language of News Media. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Bell, A. 2005. “News stories as narratives”. The Language of Time: A Reader. Eds. I. Mani, J. Pustejovsky and R. Gaizauskas. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 397-409.
  • Berning, N. 2011. Narrative Means to Journalistic Ends. Hamburg: Verlang.
  • Berning, N. 2013. “Fictual matters. Narration as a process of relating in M. Bowden’s Blackhawk Down (1997)”. Diegesis 2.2: 1-19.
  • Biber, D., et al. 2010. Grammar of Spoken and Written English (3rd edn). London: Longman.
  • Cristofaro, S. 2005. Subordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Emmott, C. 1997. Narrative Comprehension: A Discourse Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Fludernik, M. 2009. An Introduction to Narratology. London and New York: Routledge.
  • Garrod, S. and T. Sanford. 1988. “Thematic subjecthood and cognitive constraints in discourse structure”. Journal of Pragmatics 12: 519-534.
  • Gómez González, M. Á. and A. P. García Varela. 2014. “Discourse-organizational patterns in English and Spanish. Some notes on the thematic management of news reports”. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada 27 (1): 87-117.
  • Greenbaum, S. and R. Quirk. 2007. A Student’s Grammar of the English Language (3rd edn). London: Longman.
  • Halliday, M. A. K. 2014. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (3rd edn). London and New York: Routledge.
  • Halliday, M. A. K and R. Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
  • Hengeveld, K. 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar. Part 2. Complex and Derived Constructions. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Herman, D. 2002. Story Logic: Problems and Possibilities of Narrative. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
  • Herman, D. 2008. Events and event-types. Routledge Encyclopedia of Narrative Theory (2nd edn.). Eds. D. Herman, M. Jahn and M. L. Ryan. London: Routledge. 151-152.
  • Hewitt, L. E. 1995. “Anaphor in subjective contexts in Narrative Fiction”. Deixis in Narrative. A Cognitive Science Perspective. Eds. J. F. Duchan, G. E. Bruder and L. E. Hewitt. Mahwah: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates. 325-340.
  • Hopper, P. J. 1979. “Aspect and foregrounding in discourse”. Syntax and Semantics Vol. 12: Discourse and Syntax. Ed. T. Givón. New York: Academic Press. 213-341.
  • Hopper, P. J. and S. A. Thompson. 1980. “Transitivity in grammar and discourse”. Language 56: 251-299.
  • Huddleston, R. D. and G. K. Pullum. 2007. A Student’s Introduction to English Grammar (2nd edn). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Keeble, R. L. and J. Tulloch. 2012. Global Literary Journalism: Exploring the Journalistic Imagination. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press.
  • Kita, S. 2008. “Figure-Ground indeterminacy in descriptions of spatial relations: A construction grammar account”. Crosslinguistic Perspectives on Argument Structure. Eds. M. Bowerman and P. Brown. London: Lawrence Earlbaum. 89-109.
  • Labov, W. 1972. Language in the Inner City. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
  • Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  • Martínez, M. A. 2012. “–Ing supplementive clauses and narrative discourse referents”. International Journal of English Studies IJES 12(2) Special Issue: A New Approach to Literature: Corpus Linguistics: 73-91.
  • Prince, G. 2008. “Narrativehood, narrativity, narratability” Theorizing Narrativity. Eds. J. P. and J. A. García Landa. Berlin: de Gruyter. 19-27.
  • Propp, V. 1928. Morphology of the Folktale (2003 ed.) Austin: University of Texas Press.
  • Ryan, M. L., ed. 2004. Narrative across Media: The Languages of Storytelling. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
  • Ryan, M. L. 2007. “Toward a definition of narrative”. The Cambridge Companion to Narrative. Ed. D. Herman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 22-35.
  • Sandford, A. J. and Emmott, C. 2012. Mind, Brain and Narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Sidner, C. L. 1983. “Focusing on the comprehension of definite anaphora”. Computational Models of Discourse. Eds. M. Brady and R. Berkwick. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 267- 233.
  • Stockwell, P. 2002. Cognitive Poetics: An Introduction. London and New York: Routledge.
  • Talmy, L. 1975. “Figure and Ground in complex sentences”. Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 419-430.
  • Talmy, L. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics, Vol. I: Concept and Structuring Systems. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
  • Thompson, S. A. 1987. “Subordination and narrative event structure”. Coherence and Grounding in Discourse. Ed. R. S. Tomlin. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 435-454.
  • Toolan, M. 1990. The Stylistics of Fiction: A Literary-Linguistic Approach. London and New York: Routledge.
  • Tsur, R. 2009. “Metaphor and figure-ground relationship: comparisons for poetry, music, and the arts”. Cognitive Poetics: Goals, Gains, and Gaps. Eds. G. Brône and J. Vandaele. Berlin. Mouton de Gruyter. 237-277.
  • Van Dijk, T. A. 1986. “News schemata”. Studying Writing: Linguistic Approaches. Eds. C. R. Cooper and S. Greenbaum. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. 155-186.
  • Van Dijk, T. A. 1988. News as Discourse. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Van Gelderen, E. 2002. An Introduction to the Grammar of English. Amsterdam, Phil.: John Benjamins.
  • Verhaert, A. 2006. El Gerundio No-Perifrástico en Español: Cómo No Ser Demasiado Explícito Ni Demasiado Implícito. Amsterdam and New York: Rodophi.
  • Wallace, S. 1982. “Figure and Ground: the interrelationship of linguistic categories”. Tense- Aspect: Between Semantics and Pragmatics. Ed. P. J. Hopper. Amsterdam, Phil.: John Benjamins. 201-223.
La source de données: Dialnet