Show Less
Restricted access

Pragmantax II

Zum aktuellen Stand der Linguistik und ihrer Teildisziplinen- Akten des 43. Linguistischen Kolloquiums in Magdeburg 2008- The Present State of Linguistics and its Sub-Disciplines- Proceedings of the 43 rd Linguistics Colloquium, Magdeburg

Series:

Katrin Schöpe, Renate Belentschikow, Angelika Bergien and Armin Burkhardt

Dieser Band vereinigt 63 Beiträge in deutscher, englischer und französischer Sprache. Er repräsentiert ein breites Spektrum an Themen und Erkenntnissen aus verschiedenen Bereichen der Linguistik und versucht damit eine kritische Bestandsaufnahme des Faches. Die Beiträge widmen sich Fragestellungen aus den Gebieten der Grammatik, Semantik, Text- und Diskurspragmatik sowie der Angewandten Linguistik. Aufsätze zur kontrastiven Linguistik und zur Fremdsprachendidaktik runden den Band ab.
This volume contains the revised versions of 63 papers, written in German, English and French. It considers a broad spectrum of topics and findings from various areas of linguistics and thereby offers a critical review of the field. The authors address questions ranging from grammar, semantics, text and discourse pragmatics to issues from the field of applied linguistics. The volume is concluded by studies on contrastive linguistics and foreign language pedagogy.
Show Summary Details
Restricted access

A Purring and Screeching Human Being: Different Measures of Linguistic Acceptability

Extract



Irina Pasenkova, Barcelona

According to standard assumptions the current linguistic concepts agent and patient have been investigated by a few linguists: Reinhart (2002), Dowty (1991), Jackendorf (1990), Kiparsky (1985) and Lakoff (1966). An agent is an event participant who carries out some dynamic activity. A patient is a participant who does not carry out any activity and is undergoing some activity in the event described in the utterance. Lakoff (1966) considers the subject as an agent in case it is accompanied by the predicates expressing motion, volition and responsibility. All listed attributes specify the subject as an active one to accomplish deliberate conscious activity. In respect of the verbs of speaking the concept agent seems to be inapplicable. For instance, in the sentence She said the subject is interpreted differently as compared with the sentence She squealed. The first case describes the subject as a dynamic entity committing the speech act purposefully. The second utterance assigns the subject a different interpretation. The agent possesses the only attribute: motion. The other two characteristics (volition and responsibility) do not belong to the subject. The question is: if the definition “activity” is appropriate for the subject in the sentence She squealed. Probably it is better to use the definition “non-passivity” for the situations which the subject takes part in, but his role is “not quite active”. For example, the subjects in the sentences

1)      a. Mary gave a start

b. Basil blurted out

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.

Do you have any questions? Contact us.

Or login to access all content.