Difference between revisions of "Kerr2014"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=INCOLLECTION |Author(s)=Betsy Kerr |Title=Left dislocation in French: Information structure vs. (?) interactional linguistics |Editor(s)=S. Katz Bourns; L...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|Author(s)=Betsy Kerr | |Author(s)=Betsy Kerr | ||
|Title=Left dislocation in French: Information structure vs. (?) interactional linguistics | |Title=Left dislocation in French: Information structure vs. (?) interactional linguistics | ||
| − | |Editor(s)= | + | |Editor(s)=Stacey Katz Bourns; Lindsy L. Myers |
| − | |Tag(s)=IL; French; | + | |Tag(s)=IL; French; |
|Key=Kerr2014 | |Key=Kerr2014 | ||
|Year=2014 | |Year=2014 | ||
| − | |Booktitle=Perspectives on Linguistic Structure and Context: Studies in | + | |Booktitle=Perspectives on Linguistic Structure and Context: Studies in Honor of Knud Lambrecht |
| − | |Pages= | + | |Pages=223–240 |
| − | |URL=https:// | + | |URL=https://benjamins.com/catalog/pbns.244.11ker |
|DOI=10.1075/pbns.244.11ker | |DOI=10.1075/pbns.244.11ker | ||
|Abstract=A number of studies of Left Dislocation (LD) in spoken French within the Interactional Linguistics (IL) framework (de Fornel 1988; Pekarek Doehler 2001; Chevalier 2011b) have been critical of the information-structure analyses of this construction as set forth in Lambrecht (1981, 1994) and Barnes (1985). This discussion attempts to clarify the original information-structure analysis, arguing that the pragmatic definition of LD should be limited to the explicit marking of the sentence-topic and its associated comment. This topic-comment configuration is compatible with a large variety of particular functions with respect to the larger discourse and to speakers’ interactional purposes. Explanatorily useful IL analyses are those that make clear the connection between the topic-comment configuration and the proposed interactional function. | |Abstract=A number of studies of Left Dislocation (LD) in spoken French within the Interactional Linguistics (IL) framework (de Fornel 1988; Pekarek Doehler 2001; Chevalier 2011b) have been critical of the information-structure analyses of this construction as set forth in Lambrecht (1981, 1994) and Barnes (1985). This discussion attempts to clarify the original information-structure analysis, arguing that the pragmatic definition of LD should be limited to the explicit marking of the sentence-topic and its associated comment. This topic-comment configuration is compatible with a large variety of particular functions with respect to the larger discourse and to speakers’ interactional purposes. Explanatorily useful IL analyses are those that make clear the connection between the topic-comment configuration and the proposed interactional function. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 10:15, 9 December 2019
| Kerr2014 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | INCOLLECTION |
| Key | Kerr2014 |
| Author(s) | Betsy Kerr |
| Title | Left dislocation in French: Information structure vs. (?) interactional linguistics |
| Editor(s) | Stacey Katz Bourns, Lindsy L. Myers |
| Tag(s) | IL, French |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2014 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | |
| Volume | |
| Number | |
| Pages | 223–240 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1075/pbns.244.11ker |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | Perspectives on Linguistic Structure and Context: Studies in Honor of Knud Lambrecht |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
A number of studies of Left Dislocation (LD) in spoken French within the Interactional Linguistics (IL) framework (de Fornel 1988; Pekarek Doehler 2001; Chevalier 2011b) have been critical of the information-structure analyses of this construction as set forth in Lambrecht (1981, 1994) and Barnes (1985). This discussion attempts to clarify the original information-structure analysis, arguing that the pragmatic definition of LD should be limited to the explicit marking of the sentence-topic and its associated comment. This topic-comment configuration is compatible with a large variety of particular functions with respect to the larger discourse and to speakers’ interactional purposes. Explanatorily useful IL analyses are those that make clear the connection between the topic-comment configuration and the proposed interactional function.
Notes
