-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

Revista:
Journal of English Studies

ISSN: 1576-6357

Año de publicación: 2015

Número: 13

Páginas: 83-108

Tipo: Artículo

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

Otras publicaciones en: Journal of English Studies

Resumen

El presente estudio contempla el papel de las construcciones de gerundio no-perifrástico en lengua inglesa como indicadores de prominencia discursiva en periodismo literario. Estas unidades lingüísticas - “Using them as cups, they sip the filthy water” (Time, 14 January 2013: 18) - son difíciles de describir desde la perspectiva de la sintaxis y semántica oracional (Hengenveld 1997; Greenbaum and Quirk 2007; Huddleston and Pullum 2007: 207; Biber et al. 2010: 829). Sin embargo, estudios supraoracionales dentro de paradigmas cognitivo-funcionales sugieren que fenómenos como la puesta de relieve (Verhaert 2006) y la prominencia discursiva (Martínez 2012) pueden ser cruciales en su análisis. Este estudio analiza una colección de reportajes periodísticos del semanario norteamericano Time, y parece indicar que estas construcciones se asocian a entidades prominentes en el discurso, pudiendo combinarse entre para resaltar secuencias lógicas de sucesos y situaciones. Por ello cabe considerar que estas construcciones intervienen en el control referencial y atencional del discurso.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • 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.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet