Antonyms and canonicity

Jones, Steven J.M.; Murphy, M. Lynne; Paradis, Carita; Willners, Caroline

doi:10.1017/cbo9781139032384.004

Cited by 8 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Malgré une finalité commune -l'expression d'une totalité -qui leur permet de constituer deux faces d'une même fonction, nous avons choisi de distinguer l'exhaustivité sans rétroclassement (simple mise en relation) et l'exhaustivité par rétroclassement (double mise en relation), car elles nous sont apparues comme le résultat de deux mécanismes très différents. Ces mécanismes sont plus complexes que la coordination de surface X et/ou Y, à laquelle Jones (2002) et Jones et al (2012) associent l'exhaustiveness, parce qu'ils se situent à un niveau plus profond de structuration de l'énoncé, le niveau des relations prédicat-arguments. Ce niveau met en jeu la combinatoire des antonymes qui dépend de la partie du discours à laquelle ils appartiennent.…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

“…Ces patrons sont repris et enrichis principalement par Steven Jones (2002) et adaptés au français par François Morlane-Hondère (2008). Le second aspect a été développé essentiellement par Jones (2002) et Jones et al (2012) qui classent les coprésences antonymiques en dix catégories, fondées sur les différentes « fonctions discursives » (discourse functions) qu'elles peuvent exercer. À chaque « fonction » sont associés des patrons syntaxiques privilégiés.…”

Section: Antonymie Coordonnée Et Exhaustivitéunclassified

See 1 more Smart Citation

Antonymie et exhaustivité

Steffens

2016

SHS Web of Conferences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionunclassified

Section: Antonymie Coordonnée Et Exhaustivitéunclassified

Antonymie et exhaustivité

Steffens

2016

SHS Web of Conferences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In addition to the many papers on opposition in discourse, a limited number of studies focus on the syntagmatic realisations of conventional antonymic pairs in context, for rhetorical or other purposes (Justeson and Katz 1991;Mettinger 1994;Jones 2002;Jones et al 2012). These studies, based on corpora of textual data, consider the semantic functions of antonymy in discourse through the analysis of syntactic structures, called syntactic patterns, that link the two members of an antonymic pair used together in the same sentence or group of sentences.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These studies, based on corpora of textual data, consider the semantic functions of antonymy in discourse through the analysis of syntactic structures, called syntactic patterns, that link the two members of an antonymic pair used together in the same sentence or group of sentences. This approach was developed mainly by Steven Jones (Jones 2002;Jones et al 2012), who classifies antonymic co-occurrences into ten categories, based on the different discourse functions they can fulfil. Each function is associated with one or more privileged syntactic patterns.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The rest of the paper is organised as follows: "Discourse Functions of Antonymy: Jones' Ten Functions" section presents an overview of the discourse functions identified by Jones (2002) and Jones et al (2012), with a focus on the two most common functions, ancillary and coordination. "Discourse Functions of Antonymy: A Study for French" section describes the constitution and analysis of the French journalistic corpus at the heart of the present study.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Antonymic Discourse Functions and Manipulation: A Corpus Analysis of Present-Day French

Steffens

2018

Corpus Pragmatics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study of the discourse functions of antonymy was developed mainly by Steven Jones (Antonymy: a corpus-based perspective. Routledge, London, 2002; Antonyms in english. Construals, constructions and canonicity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012), who classifies antonymic co-occurrences in English into ten categories, based on the different discourse functions they can fulfil. On the basis of a similar study of antonymic discourse functions in French, this paper explores how two opposites used in the same sentence exploit our thought processes to influence the way we conceptualise the world. It focuses on sentences extracted from the newspaper Le Monde (1987-2006 and 2009-2011) in which two antonyms are used in co-presence. Through the analysis of these utterances, this paper describes the discourse functions of antonymy in French and shows how the semantic and syntactic roles of co-present antonyms determine the semantico-referential functions they perform. I then analyse how the two major (groups of) functions, the ancillary function and the coordination functions, identified in English journalistic texts by Steven Jones, produce meaning effects in French texts, and how the mechanisms underlying these functions allow opposites to manipulate us.

show abstract

Introduction

O’Keeffe

Mhocháin

2018

Corpus Pragmatics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The special issue is the second of two special issues on the theme of Corpus, Context and Pragmatics, bringing together a collection of papers from ongoing work within the Inter-Varietal Applied Corpus Studies (IVACS) research network. This collection of papers showcases the span of research across areas of pragmatics that is made possible by the use of corpora in an effort to examine naturally-occurring language use in context. In curating this volume, we have brought together quite an eclectic range of contexts of language use. In doing so, this underscores the growing reach and impact of corpus pragmatics. The papers in this volume span across modes: spoken and written (newspapers, emails, letters); languages, language varieties and vernaculars: Catalan, (British and Irish) English and French. The contexts of language use range across public and private spheres: from politicians' and public representatives' emails and newspaper articles to paupers' letters addressed to public figures, as well as everyday conversations between family and friends.The richness of context in this volume relates also to points in time, both politically to historically. In the work of two of the papers in this volume, De Felice and Garretson and Timmis, we see communication in two very different times, modes and mediums. De Felice and Garretson look at email communication to and from Hillary Clinton while she was United States Secretary of State (using a sub-set of 500 emails from the recently released 33,000 emails). Armed with the metadata relating to who emailed whom, this study sets the context for an investigation into status, power and gender and exposes linguistic difference across variables of perceived influence due to hierarchy, familiarity or gender inherent in the data. The findings indicate the main difference is in content and function of the emails sent, with politeness being more evident in function rather than linguistic difference. The richness of the metadata available for this corpus bodes well for its potential as a rich source of pragmatic research into the future. It also reminds us of the importance of recording as much metadata as possible when building a corpus which is fit for optimum corpus pragmatics research.

show abstract

Antonyms and canonicity

Cited by 8 publications

References 0 publications

Antonymie et exhaustivité

Antonymie et exhaustivité

Antonymic Discourse Functions and Manipulation: A Corpus Analysis of Present-Day French

Introduction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About