Difference between revisions of "Thompson2002"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Sandra A. Thompson; |Title=“Object complements” and conversation: towards a realistic account |Tag(s)=IL; Stance; Compliments; |Ke...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BibEntry | {{BibEntry | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
| − | |Author(s)=Sandra A. Thompson; | + | |Author(s)=Sandra A. Thompson; |
|Title=“Object complements” and conversation: towards a realistic account | |Title=“Object complements” and conversation: towards a realistic account | ||
| − | |Tag(s)=IL; Stance; Compliments; | + | |Tag(s)=IL; Stance; Compliments; |
|Key=Thompson2002 | |Key=Thompson2002 | ||
|Year=2002 | |Year=2002 | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
|Volume=26 | |Volume=26 | ||
|Number=1 | |Number=1 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Pages=125–164 |
| − | | | + | |URL=https://www.jbe-platform.com/content/journals/10.1075/sl.26.1.05tho |
| − | |Abstract=Based on a corpus of conversational English, I argue that the standard view of complements as subordinate clauses in a grammatical relation with a complement-taking predicate is not supported by the data. Rather, what has been described under the heading of complementation can be understood in terms of epistemic/evidential/evaluative formulaic fragments expressing speaker stance toward the content of a clause. This analysis, in which CTPs and their subjects are stored and retrieved as formulaic stance markers accounts for the grammatical, pragmatic, prosodic, and phonological data more satisfactorily than a complementation analysis. | + | |DOI=10.1075/sl.26.1.05tho |
| + | |Abstract=Based on a corpus of conversational English, I argue that the standard view of complements as subordinate clauses in a grammatical relation with a complement-taking predicate is not supported by the data. Rather, what has been described under the heading of complementation can be understood in terms of epistemic/evidential/evaluative formulaic fragments expressing speaker stance toward the content of a clause. This analysis, in which CTPs and their subjects are stored and retrieved as formulaic stance markers accounts for the grammatical, pragmatic, prosodic, and phonological data more satisfactorily than a complementation analysis. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 01:10, 30 October 2019
| Thompson2002 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Thompson2002 |
| Author(s) | Sandra A. Thompson |
| Title | “Object complements” and conversation: towards a realistic account |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | IL, Stance, Compliments |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2002 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Studies in Language |
| Volume | 26 |
| Number | 1 |
| Pages | 125–164 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1075/sl.26.1.05tho |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Based on a corpus of conversational English, I argue that the standard view of complements as subordinate clauses in a grammatical relation with a complement-taking predicate is not supported by the data. Rather, what has been described under the heading of complementation can be understood in terms of epistemic/evidential/evaluative formulaic fragments expressing speaker stance toward the content of a clause. This analysis, in which CTPs and their subjects are stored and retrieved as formulaic stance markers accounts for the grammatical, pragmatic, prosodic, and phonological data more satisfactorily than a complementation analysis.
Notes
