Cover not available
Article published In:
Transcategoriality: A crosslinguistic perspective
Edited by Sylvie Hancil, Danh Thành Do-Hurinville and Huy Linh Dao
[Cognitive Linguistic Studies 5:1] 2018
► pp. 61–76

Transcategoriality and right periphery

| University of Rouen

Among the various syntactic functions that transcategorial but can take, it is the final particle that is the focus of our attention. As it is a characteristic feature of Northern English colloquial conversations, the semantic-pragmatic analysis is pursued in the spoken section of the Scottish Corpus of Texts and Speech. Moreover, particular attention is paid to the relationship between final but and information structure in order to account for the strategy of organizing information. In addition, it is shown that its status as a post-rheme element, which takes into account the position of this particle, does not pay tribute to its main function of textual cohesion. Finally, its potential status as an Antitopic is discussed.

Keywords: transcategoriality, final but , schematic form, semantic invariant, information structure, textual cohesion, interpersonal coherence, Scottish English
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Transcategorial but and semantic invariant
    • 2.1Final but and experiential iconicity
    • 2.2Final but and information structure
  • 3.Final but and interactional coherence
  • 4.To what extent is post-rhematic but an antitopic ?
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 30 August 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00013.han
References

References

Anward, J.
(2000) A dynamic model of part-of-speech differentiation. In P. M. Vogel & B. Comrie (Eds.), Approaches to the typology of word classes (pp. 3–45). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beal, Joan & Burbano Elizondo, Lourdes & Carmen Llamas
(2012) Urban North-Eastern English: Tyneside to Teeside. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Clarke, Sandra
(2010) Newfoundland and Labrador English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culioli, Antoine
(1990) Pour une linguistique de l’énonciation, Vol. 1, Opérations et représentations. L’Homme dans la langue. Paris/Gap: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Dictionary of the Scots language
Consulted online: [URL].
Enkvist, N. E.
(1981) Experiential iconicity in text strategy. Text 11, 77–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fernandez-Vest, M. M. J.
(1994) Les Particules énonciatives dans la construction du discours. (Collection Linguistique nouvelle). Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
(2004) Mnémème, Antitopic – Le Post-Rhème, de l’énoncé au texte. In M. M. Jocelyne Fernandez-Vest & Shirley Carter-Thomas (Eds.), Structure Informationnelle et Particules Enonciatives – essai de typologie (Grammaire & Cognition 1–2) (pp. 65–104). Paris: Editions L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Fernandez-Vest, M. M. Jocelyne
(2006) Vers une typologie linguistique du détachement à fondement ouralien d’Europe. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris C1 (1), 173–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015) Detachment for cohesion. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ford, C. & S. Thompson
(1996) Interactional units in conversation: syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns. In E. Ochs et al. (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 134–184). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, T.
(1983) Topic continuity in discourse: an introduction. In T. Givón (Ed.), Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study (pp. 1–41). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hancil, S.
(2017) Final but in Northern Englishes. In S. Hancil & Joan A. Beal (Eds.), Perspectives on Northern Englishes (pp. 191–211). Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Forthcoming). Discourse coherence and intersubjectivity: The development of final but in dialogues. In Sylvie Hancil & Alexander Haselow Eds. Dialogism and language change. Special issue of Language Sciences
Lakoff, G.
(1987) Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, K.
(1981) Topic, antitopic and verb agreement in non-standard French. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1994) Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representation of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martinet, A.
(1960) Éléments de linguistique générale. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
Michaelis, L. A.
(1996) Cross-world continuity, and the polysemy of adverbial Still . In G. Fauconnier & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Space, worlds and grammar (pp. 179–226). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
OED. The Oxford dictionary of English
Consulted online: [URL].
Prince, E. F.
(1981) Towards a taxonomy of given-new information. In Peter Cole (ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp. 233–255). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Robert, S.
(2003) Introduction: de la grammaticalisation à la transcatégorialité. In S. Robert (Ed.), Perpectives synchroniques sur la grammaticalisation (pp. 85–120). Louvain-Paris: Peeters.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. et al.
(1977) The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53 (2), 361–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, P.
(2004) New dialect formation: The inevitability of Colonial Englishes. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Ward, G. & B. Birner
(1996) On the discourse function of rightward movement in English. In A. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language (pp. 463–479). Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information Publications.Google Scholar
Zipf, G. K.
(1949) Human behavior and the principle of least effort. New York: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Obrębska, Monika & Paweł Kleka
2022. Lexical indicators of anxiety in schizophrenia. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 october 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.