The paper presents a study on fictive motion (FM) uses of motion verbs in English and slovene from the point of view of conveying path-related information. An FM expression describes a static scene in terms of motion (e.g. The road weaves through a range of hills). Motion verbs in FM uses do not describe actual motion events, but may refer to certain properties of the path by virtue of their meanings. English and slovene FM expressions exhibit different behaviours in this respect. Many English verbs display meaning components that can be metonymically mapped onto the properties of the path. The meanings of slovene verbs are less specific, so that such properties need to be expressed verb-externally in slovene FM expressions.
The paper investigates the syntactic, semantic, and cultural properties of minimizers and maximizers from a contrastive perspective. Minimizers and maximizers are scalar constructions whose function is to strengthen the speaker’s (negative) assertion by pointing to the minimal (minimizers) or the maximal (maximizers) point on a pragmatic scale. The syntactic analysis reveals that these items are predominantly sub-clausal (V+NP/PP or NP/PP), and polarity sensitive, requiring the presence of a polarity licenser. The lexical analysis identifies three possibilities with regard to lexical selections in the two languages: a complete, partial, and a non-existent lexico-semantic overlap. Furthermore, the corpus data indicate that there is considerable variation in the lexical items appearing in minimizers and maximizers (e.g., give a damn/shit/toss/fuck/monkey’s/fig/rat’s ( arse , ass, fart)/hoot). Even though minimizers and maximizers in both languages involve the metaphor more is up, less is down / good is up, bad is down and part-for-whole metonymy, the analysis shows that the lexical selection in the two languages diverges due to different cultural conceptualisations and cultural background. The observation and results of the analysis presented herein aim at contributing to a better understanding of idiomatic expressions from the viewpoint of contrastive linguistics, cultural studies, and cultural conceptualisation.
Summary e aim of the paper is to provide an explanation for the following difference between English and Slovene: whereas in English a definite determiner and a possessor are in complementary distribution, in Slovene the two categories are perfectly compatible. Arguing that the traditional approach to determiner-possessor complementarity is inadequate, the paper proposes an explanation that has been developed within the framework of generative grammar: languages exhibiting determiner-possessor complementarity are characterized by the presence of the >adef@ feature on the functional head Pos. e generative approach also shows that (with the definite article and a demonstrative occupying different structural positions) determiner-possessor complementarity is in fact twofold, comprising (i) articlepossessor complementarity and (ii) demonstrative-possessor complementarity. PovzetekNamen članka je razložiti naslednje razhajanje med angleščino in slovenščino: medtem ko se v angleščini določni element in posedovalec medsebojno izključujeta, sta v slovenščini omenjeni kategoriji med seboj popolnoma kompatibilni. Ker se izkaže, da je tradicionalni pristop h komplementarnosti določnega elementa in posedovalca neustrezen, članek predlaga drugačno razlago, zasnovano v okviru tvorbene slovnice: v jezikih, katerih značilnost je komplementarnost določnega elementa in posedovalca, je funkcijsko jedro Pos nosilec obeležja >adef@. Tvorbeni pristop pokaže tudi, da je (zaradi različnih strukturalnih položajev določnega člena in kazalnega zaimka) komplementarnost določnega elementa in posedovalca pravzaprav dvojna, in sicer vključuje (i) komplementarnost določnega člena in posedovalca ter (ii) komplementarnost kazalnega zaimka in posedovalca.
The paper addresses some typical instances of the translator’s failure to recognize definite reference in Slovene, which, in turn, results in an inappropriate determiner selection in English. It is argued that errors of this kind are ascribable not solely to the fact that the Slovene determiner system lacks an overt non-selective determiner parallel to the definite article, but to the relatively scarce use of overt determiners in general. Since definiteness is typically signalled by an anaphoric relation, some factors are explored that may help identify textual co-reference despite the absence of explicit anaphoric markers. Besides the translator’s inability to recognize the given phrase as anaphoric, two other major causes of inappropriate determiner selection are discussed: the misconception that the absence of an anaphoric relation entails indefiniteness and the translator’s misinterpreting an anaphoric expression as an ascriptive, non-referential entity. The second part of the paper focuses on the difference in use between the selective demonstrative pronoun and the non-selective definite article.
The paper presents the findings of the study concerning the use of prenominal and postnominal constructions in English and Slovene. The study has been based on the cognitive approach according to which the possesor functions as a reference point facilitating identification of the possessee. The term "identification value" has been used in the study to refer to the cluster of properties that render a nominal compatible with the reference-point function. The main factors contributing to the identification value of the possessor nominal are its "topicality" (i.e. mental accessibility) and its "informativity" (i.e. ability to be an effective cue fot the identification of the relation between the possessor and the possessee). The findings of the study confirm that in both languages (i) the pronominal possessor has the reference-point function by default, and that (ii) the identification value of the possessor is the main factor determining the choice between the prenominal and the postnominal constructions.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.