Linguistic analysis of literary data

 
 
Diplomica Verlag
  • 1. Auflage
  • |
  • erschienen im August 2017
  • |
  • 216 Seiten
 
E-Book | PDF ohne DRM | Systemvoraussetzungen
978-3-96067-632-4 (ISBN)
 
Literary data is supposed to reflect real life situations and is at the same time written in a style of writing that is considered as highly elevated. Such reasons have prompted the contributors to this book to deal with this type of data. Such attempts range from semantics to stylistics and pragmatics. This book introduces linguistic analyses of literary data from different points of view. This involves dealing with various linguistic topics and different types of literary data. Hence, many models are presented to analyze the linguistic aspects of those topics in the light of the genre in which those topics are undertaken. Accordingly, different results are yielded from those analyses and this makes each type of analysis distinct from the other ones.
It is hoped that this work will be a useful source to all those - whether theoretically, practically, or both - interested in linguistics, pragmatics of literature, applied linguistics and literary stylistics.
  • Englisch
  • Hamburg
  • |
  • Deutschland
40 Abb.
  • 2,35 MB
978-3-96067-632-4 (9783960676324)
3960676328 (3960676328)
weitere Ausgaben werden ermittelt
  • Linguistic analysisof literary data
  • Table of Contents
  • Preface
  • Contributors
  • CHAPTER ONE A STYLISTIC STUDY OF SYNONYMY IN W. WORDSWORTH'S POETRY
  • 1.1. Introduction
  • 1.2. Synonymy
  • 1.2.1 Lexical synonymy
  • 1.2.2 Propositional and Cognitive Synonymy
  • 1.3. Palmer's (1981) Conception of Synonymy
  • 1.4. Approaches for Analyzing Synonymy
  • 1.4.1 Traditional Truth-conditional Approach
  • 1.4.2 Componential Analysis and Semantic Features Approach
  • 1.5. Data Collection, Description and Analysis
  • 1.5.1 Data Collection and Description
  • 1.5.2 Data Analysis
  • 1.6 Conclusions
  • References
  • CHAPTER TWO SEMANTIC CLAUSE RELATIONS IN LITERARY DISCOURSE
  • 2.1. Literature Review
  • 2.1.1 Introduction
  • 2.1.2 Winter's (1977) Semantic Theory of Clause Relations
  • 2.1.3 The Criteria of Closed-System Semantics
  • 2.1.4 Applications of Winter's Semantic Theory of Clause Relations
  • 2.1.5. Classification of Clause Relations
  • 2.2 The Analytic Framework and Text Analysis
  • 2.2.1 Introduction
  • 2.2.2 The Analytic Framework
  • 2.2.3 Text Analysis
  • 2.2.4 Discussion of the Clause Relations
  • 2.3 Conclusions
  • References
  • CHAPTER THREE TOWARDS A MODEL OF LOCAL PRAGMATIC COHERENCE IN D.H. LAWRENCE'S 'SONS AND LOVERS'
  • 3.1. Introduction
  • 3.1.1 Pragmatic Relations vs. Semantic Relations
  • 3.1.2 Models of Local Pragmatic Coherence
  • 3.2. Degand's (1998) Techniques
  • 3.3. Analyzed Examples for Illustration
  • 3.3.1 Speech Act and Epistemic Relations
  • 3.4 Conclusions
  • References
  • CHAPTER FOUR A MODEL FOR THE PRAGMATIC ANALYSIS OF ARGUMENTATION IN 'JANE EYRE' AND 'WUTHERING HEIGHTS'
  • 4.1. Introduction
  • 4.1.1. Models of Argumentation
  • 4.2. An Eclectic Model
  • 4.3. Data Analysis
  • 4.4 Conclusions
  • References
  • CHAPTER FIVE A PRAGMA-STYLISTIC STUDY OF SYMBOLISM IN JOSEPH CONRAD'S 'HEART OF DARKNESS'
  • 5.1 Introduction
  • 5.2 Theoretical Background
  • 5.2.1 Pragmatics and Literature
  • 5.2.2 Stylistics and Literature
  • 5.2.3 Pragmatic Stylistics
  • 5.3 Model of Analysis
  • 5.3.1 Eco's (1984) Pragmatic Model of Symbolism
  • 5.3.2 Niazi and Gautams' (2010) Pragma- Stylistic Model
  • 5.3.3 Al-Hindawi and Abu-Kroozs' (2012) Pragma-Rhetorical Tropes Model
  • 5.4. Data and Analysis
  • 5.4.1 Data
  • 5.4.2 Analysis
  • 5.4.3 Results and Discussion
  • 5.5 Conclusions
  • References
  • CHAPTER SIX A PRAGMATIC STUDY OF GOSSIP IN RICHARD BRINSELY SHERIDAN'S 'THE SCHOOL FOR SCANDAL'
  • 6.1. Introduction
  • 6.2. Definition
  • 6.3. Functions of Gossip
  • 6.3.1 Knowledge
  • 6.3.2 Friendship
  • 6.3.3 Influence
  • 6.3.4 Entertainment
  • 6.4. Eggnis and Slade's (1997) Generic Structure of Gossip
  • 6.4.1 Different Stages of Gossip
  • 6.4.2 The Generic Pragmatic Structure of Gossip as Developed in this Study
  • 6.5. Data Analysis and Findings
  • 6.5.1 Illustrative Examples for the Pragmatic Analysis
  • 6.5.2 Findings
  • 6.6. Achievement of the Functions of Gossip
  • 6.7 Conclusions
  • References
  • CHAPTER SEVEN A MODEL FOR THE PRAGMATIC ANALYSIS OF GOSSIP IN J. AUSTEN'S 'EMMA'
  • 7.1. Introduction
  • 7.2. Definition
  • 7.2.1 Models of Gossip
  • 7.2.2 An Eclectic Pragmatic Model
  • 7.3. Data Collection and Description
  • 7.3.1 Data Collection
  • 7.3.2 Data Description
  • 7.4. Data Analysis and Findings
  • 7.4.1 Data Analysis
  • 7.4.2 Findings
  • 7.5. Conclusions
  • References
  • CHAPTER EIGHT A COGNITIVE PRAGMATIC STUDY OF INNER VOICE IN THE FILM 'ELEGY OF A VOYAGE'
  • 8.1. Introduction
  • 8.2. Literature Review
  • 8.2.1 Pragmatics
  • 8.2.2 Cognitive Pragmatics
  • 8.2.3 Narrative as a Mode of Understanding
  • 8.2.4 The Narrator's Inner Voice in Films
  • 8.2.5 Elegy of a Voyage
  • 8.3. Model of Analysis
  • 8.3.1 Van Dijk's (1977) Model of Analysis
  • 8.3.2 Booth 's (1991) Model of Analysis
  • 8.3.3 Sperber and Wilson 's (1995) Model of Analysis
  • 8.3.4 Gilles Fauconnier's (2006)Model of Analysis
  • 8.4. Data and Analysis
  • 8.4.1 Data
  • 8.4.2 Analysis
  • 8.4.3 Illustrative Analyzed Examples
  • 8.5. Conclusions
  • References
Text Sample:

Chapter Two Semantic Clause Relations in Literary Discourse:

2.1. Literature Review:

2.1.1 Introduction:

Every language has a limited number of expressions and words part of whose function is to make explicit the semantic relationships between units in a discourse. These words and expressions act as signals of those relationships between units which are the basis of the realization of active contextual meanings. Recently, much attention has been given to the role of these words and expressions in signaling not only the relations between clauses and sentences in different kinds of discourse or texts, but also in unfolding the underlying rhetorical organization of these texts and discourses.
As such, highlighting these lexical signals is considered to be the first step towards unfolding the underlying rhetorical and relational organization of texts (Hoey, 1983:85). Therefore, words are no longer viewed as having stable meaning; rather, they have dynamic and creative meaning contextually negotiable between the encoder and the decoder throughout the communication process (ibid: 86).
Therefore, this study aims at identifying vocabulary 3 items in a corpus of a literary text as a means of signalling the clause relations that hold between different parts of the text. This study also aims at classifying these lexically signalled clause relations. It is hypothesized that the different types of clause relations which are used in literary texts help the reader to interpret the message being communicated by the writer about the way in which the literary discourse should be interpreted. The writer is telling his/her reader to interpret the juxtaposition of the parts of his/her discourse in a particular way.
2.1.2 Winter's (1977) Semantic Theory of Clause Relations:

Winter's semantic theory of clause relations is based on the notion that adjacent clauses and sentences complement the meaning of each other. That is to say, the semantics of one sentence is completed by the semantics of another which constitute the contextual significance of both sentences. The process of interpreting one sentence depends to a greater extent on the meaning of the preceding sentence or group of sentences.
According to Winter (1977: 37), clause relations refer to "a system of predictability of context; That is, given a sentence with its preceding context, the lexical selection of the next sentence is frequently predictable". Therefore, the existence of a preceding context of a given sentence is a crucial factor in the process of interpreting that sentence.
Following Winter (1977: 38), these lexical items can be divided according to their clause-relating function into three groups; voc.1, voc.2, and voc.3. The first two groups are grammatical, the third is lexical. The first includes subordinators, the second sentence connectors or conjuncts, the third includes lexical items which Winter calls 'lexical signals'.
Winter (1982) rephrases his definition of clause relations as:

"A clause relation is the shared cognitive process whereby we interpret the meaning of a clause or a group of clauses in the light of their adjoining clause or group of clauses." Where the clauses are independent we can speak of 'sentence relation'." (p: 178).
Consequently, Winter's developed definition has resolved the conflation between the sentence and the clause, because independence is the first grammatical requirement of the sentence, in the traditional definition, though not enough for its meaning in a complete utterance unit. And since the sentence in Winter's (ibid.) definition consists of more than one clause grammatically grouped together by subordination, it follows that the clause in its independent form contains inadequate information and requires lexical realization by adjoining clauses to be fully understood.
As an illustration, Winter (ibid:185) asserts that though the clause 'There is a problem' is perfectly grammatical, it remains incomprehensible and needs a lexical realization by the adjoining clauses. He also terms this clause as 'unspecific clause' which requires semantic completeness by answering the question ' What is the problem?', i.e., it must have a lexical realization from the adjoining clauses which he terms as 'specific clauses'.
2.1.2.1 Definition of Clause Relations:

Winter's clause relational approach has culminated in a broader definition presented by Hoey & Winter (1986:123) in which they expand Winter's definition (1982) by accounting for the reader/writer communicative interaction. The reader is the decoder or interpreter of the combination of sentences or clauses in the light of the preceding ones, whereas, the writer, as encoder of the message, makes all the possible choices from lexis, grammar and intonation in the creation of the combination of clauses or sentences in the same discourse. Thus, Hoey & Winter (1986: 123) provide a new definition of clause relation where emphasis is laid on writer-reader communicative interaction:

"A clause relation is the cognitive process, and the product of that process, whereby the reader interprets the meaning of a clause, sentence, or group of sentences in the same discourse. It is also the cognitive process and the product of that process whereby the choices the writer makes from grammar, lexis, and intonation in the creation of a clause, sentence, or group of sentences are made in the context of the other clauses, sentences, or groups of sentences in the discourse".
Therefore, this study adopts the aforementioned definition of clause relation to be the operational definition due to the fact that it bridges the shortcomings in all previous definitions.
As such, the following section aims at providing a general background discussion of the organization and patterning of expository discourse. Thus, it introduces Winter's semantic theory of clause relations, identifying the categories of these relations and ways of their signalling with special emphasis on lexical signalling which is the main concern of this study. The rest of the chapter is devoted to the contributions made by Hoey, Jordan and Crombie to Winter's semantic theory of clause relations. Winter's semantic theory of clause relations has undergone several stages towards a deeper understanding into the semantic and logical relations in language. He starts his investigation in a report about the sentence and the clause in scientific English written in collaboration with Huddleston, Hudson, and Henirici (1968). In a supplementary work, Winter (1971) provides a semantic analysis of clause relations. In his work he distinguishes between outer clause relations (connection between sentences) and inner clause relations ( connection by subordination) in scientific and non-scientific material. He also presents his first definition of clause relations: " a clause relation is the way in which the information of one clause is understood in the light of the other clause." ( ibid:42).
Winter considers the definition as a broadening to an earlier definition of concessive relation given by Quirk (1954). In his Ph.D work Winter (1974) makes initial reference to vocabulary 1, vocabulary 2 and vocabulary 3 items. These items are found to have a binary value within a larger semantic whole of two basic clause relations: 'logical sequence' and 'matching relations'. In a comprehensive treatment of lexical signalling of clause relations in English, Winter (1977:35) defines clause relations as "a system of predictability of context, that is, given one sentence within its preceding contexts the lexical selection of the next sentence is frequently predictable." Here, our interest is in prediction or how one part of the sentence (i.e. the clause) is made explicit in advance by some connective or paraphrase of this connective in signalling the clause relations. Winter ( ibid:17,49) offers the following three examples to show how the three types of lexical items: 'by-ing', 'thereby' and 'instrumental' are classified as vocabulary 1, 2and 3 respectively in the signalling of the binary clause relation of instrument- achievement:

Example (1):

(1a) By appealing to scientists and technologists to support his party.
(1b) Mr. Wilson won many middle class votes in the election.
Example (2):

(1) Mr. Wilson appealed to scientists and technologists to support his party.
(2) he thereby won many middle class votes in the election.
Example (3):
Mr. Wilson's appeals to scientist and technologists to support his party were instrumental in wining many middle class votes in the election.
Winter (1982: 178) has rephrased his definition to read "A clause relation is the shared cognitive process whereby we interpret the meaning of a clause or a group of clauses in the light of their adjoining clause or group of clauses." Where the clauses are independent we can speak of 'sentence relation'." According to Winter, this definition has resolved the conflation between the sentence and the clause, because independence is the first grammatical requirement of the sentence, in the traditional definition, though not enough for its meaning in a complete utterance unit. And since the sentence in Winter's definition (ibid:183) consists of more than one clause grammatically grouped together by subordination, it follows that the clause in its independent form contains inadequate information and requires lexical realization by adjoining clauses to be fully understood. As an illustration, Winter (ibid:185) asserts that though the clause 'There is a problem' is perfectly grammatical, it remains incomprehensible and needs a lexical realization by the adjoining clauses. He also terms this clause as 'unspecific clause' which requires semantic completeness by answering the question ' What is the problem?', i.e., it must have a lexical realization from the adjoining clauses which he terms as 'specific clauses'.
Winter's clause relational approach has culminated in a broader definition presented by Hoey & Winter (1986:123) in which they expand Winter's definition (1982) by accounting for the reader/writer communicative interaction. The reader is the decoder or interpreter of the combination of sentences or clauses in the light of the preceding ones, whereas, the writer, as encoder of the message, makes all the possible choices from lexis, grammar and intonation in the creation of the combination of clauses or sentences in the same discourse. The definition of clause relations final shape is provided by Hoey & Winter (1986: 123) where emphasis is laid on writer-reader. To facilitate communicative interaction:

"A clause relation is the cognitive process, and the product of that process, whereby the reader interprets the meaning of a clause, sentence, or group of sentences in the same discourse. It is also the cognitive process and the product of that process whereby the choices the writer makes from grammar, lexis, and intonation in the creation of a clause, sentence, or group of sentences are made in the context of the other clauses, sentences, or groups of sentences in the discourse."
According to Winter (1977) there exists a finite number of words, verbs, nouns and adjectives, which perform jobs in texts comparable to the grammar words and to which a text structuring function is assigned. The list of these words as proposed by Winter (1977) includes (108) items such as: addition, affirm, basis, cause, change, compare, concede, conclude, contrast, deny, differ, equal, error, example, feature, follow, instance, instrumental, kind, lead to, like(ness), mean, means of, opposite, problem, reason, resemble, similar, situation, way etc.
According to Winter, these lexical items signal the relations between clauses in a text. His theory of clause relations is based on the assumption that a finite number of lexical items, which he calls 'voc 3' items, indicate the special relation between adjacent clauses or sentences, and how the interpretation of one clause depends in some way on the interpretation of the other in the paragraph. In other words, the semantics of one sentence is completed by the semantics of the other which constitutes the contextual significance of the two of them.

Dateiformat: PDF
Kopierschutz: ohne DRM (Digital Rights Management)

Systemvoraussetzungen:

Computer (Windows; MacOS X; Linux): Verwenden Sie zum Lesen die kostenlose Software Adobe Reader, Adobe Digital Editions oder einen anderen PDF-Viewer Ihrer Wahl (siehe E-Book Hilfe).

Tablet/Smartphone (Android; iOS): Installieren Sie die kostenlose App Adobe Digital Editions oder eine andere Lese-App für E-Books (siehe E-Book Hilfe).

E-Book-Reader: Bookeen, Kobo, Pocketbook, Sony, Tolino u.v.a.m. (nur bedingt: Kindle)

Das Dateiformat PDF zeigt auf jeder Hardware eine Buchseite stets identisch an. Daher ist eine PDF auch für ein komplexes Layout geeignet, wie es bei Lehr- und Fachbüchern verwendet wird (Bilder, Tabellen, Spalten, Fußnoten). Bei kleinen Displays von E-Readern oder Smartphones sind PDF leider eher nervig, weil zu viel Scrollen notwendig ist. Ein Kopierschutz bzw. Digital Rights Management wird bei diesem E-Book nicht eingesetzt.

Weitere Informationen finden Sie in unserer E-Book Hilfe.


Download (sofort verfügbar)

39,99 €
inkl. 19% MwSt.
Download / Einzel-Lizenz
PDF ohne DRM
siehe Systemvoraussetzungen
E-Book bestellen

Unsere Web-Seiten verwenden Cookies. Mit der Nutzung dieser Web-Seiten erklären Sie sich damit einverstanden. Mehr Informationen finden Sie in unserem Datenschutzhinweis. Ok