In this study I examine some uses of connectives, and in particular co-ordinate conjunction, from a critical discourse perspective; these uses, in my view, cannot find a satisfactory explanation within current frameworks. It is suggested that we need to identify a conceptual level at which connectives function as hypo-textual signals, activating systematic law-like conditional statements (IF-THEN), which form default specifications of consistent structured knowledge frames. I argue that an account of connectives at the conceptual level of their function that does not take into consideration such tightly structured background schemata, representing both general knowledge and ideologies, cannot afford any generality. As a result, ‘deviant’ or ‘subversive’ uses of these connectives can neither be identified as such nor find an adequately general explication within existing accounts, whereas in the proposed framework such uses find a ready explanation of sufficient generality. This framework lies at the intersection of disciplines: Linguistic pragmatics (empirical pragmatics, critical discourse analysis), on the one hand, and cognitive science, on the other. Consequently, this proposal, too, can be regarded as a plea for crossing boundaries and joining forces.
2021. Like in Discourse Marker Combinations in Spoken Interaction. Corpus Pragmatics 5:4 ► pp. 463 ff.
Crible, Ludivine
2021. Negation Cancels Discourse-Level Processing Differences: Evidence from Reading Times in Concession and Result Relations. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 50:6 ► pp. 1283 ff.
2020. When Do We Leave Discourse Relations Underspecified? The Effect of Formality and Relation Type. Discours :26
Bardzokas, Valandis
2015. Correction-but: A relevance-theoretic reappraisal. Language & Communication 45 ► pp. 27 ff.
CORMINBOEUF, GILLES
2013. Une composante «émotive» dans les constructions articulées par unetd'opposition?. Journal of French Language Studies 23:3 ► pp. 357 ff.
Corminboeuf, Gilles
2015. Vous êtes dévot et vous vous emportez!L’effet d’attente déçue dans les constructions à valeur oppositive. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 60:2 ► pp. 215 ff.
Rossette, Fiona
2013. And-Prefaced Utterances: From Speech to Text. Anglophonia Caliban/Sigma :17 (34) ► pp. 105 ff.
Ariel, Mira
2012. Relational and independent and conjunctions. Lingua 122:14 ► pp. 1692 ff.
Jungmi Lee
2011. A Study on the Procedural Contrastive Analysis of Discourse Marker but in English.. The New Korean Journal of English Lnaguage & Literature 53:2 ► pp. 277 ff.
Hertwig, Ralph, Björn Benz & Stefan Krauss
2008. The conjunction fallacy and the many meanings of and. Cognition 108:3 ► pp. 740 ff.
Blakemore, Diane & Robyn Carston
2005. The pragmatics of sentential coordination with and. Lingua 115:4 ► pp. 569 ff.
Kitis, Eliza & Anastasios Tsangalidis
2005. Expressivity as an option of tense-aspect in language: The case of Modern Greek imperfective past. In Reviewing Linguistic Thought, ► pp. 143 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 september 2024. 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.