Difference between revisions of "Keevalik2011"
SaulAlbert (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Leelo Keevallik; |Title=Pro-forms as projective devices in interaction |Tag(s)=EMCA; |Key=Keevalik2011 |Year=2011 |Journal=Discourse P...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) m |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BibEntry | {{BibEntry | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
| − | |Author(s)=Leelo Keevallik; | + | |Author(s)=Leelo Keevallik; |
|Title=Pro-forms as projective devices in interaction | |Title=Pro-forms as projective devices in interaction | ||
| − | |Tag(s)=EMCA; | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; |
|Key=Keevalik2011 | |Key=Keevalik2011 | ||
|Year=2011 | |Year=2011 | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
|Volume=48 | |Volume=48 | ||
|Number=6 | |Number=6 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Pages=404–431 |
| + | |URL=http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0163853X.2011.559150 | ||
| + | |DOI=10.1080/0163853X.2011.559150 | ||
| + | |Abstract=Cataphoric pronouns have been characterized as being co-referential with a word that comes later. Considering that talk is produced in real time, with little benefit of knowing what is yet to come, participants understand cataphoric pro-forms to be projecting more talk. Projection is a crucial interactive resource, as it enables speakers to align with the ongoing talk and to initiate subsequent contributions in a timely manner. The study looks at how Estonian pro-forms are systematically used to project either a word (phrase) or a clause in interaction. The patterns discussed are not universal and it will be suggested that projecting word (phrases) with pro-forms is a characteristic of a nonprepositional language with no articles, and that pro-form projection can be especially useful in a free word order language. As many pro-forms do not end up with a co-referential word, projection provides a better account of their function. The article underlines the necessity of studying grammar as a temporal phenomenon. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 11:54, 24 March 2016
| Keevalik2011 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Keevalik2011 |
| Author(s) | Leelo Keevallik |
| Title | Pro-forms as projective devices in interaction |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2011 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Discourse Processes |
| Volume | 48 |
| Number | 6 |
| Pages | 404–431 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1080/0163853X.2011.559150 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Cataphoric pronouns have been characterized as being co-referential with a word that comes later. Considering that talk is produced in real time, with little benefit of knowing what is yet to come, participants understand cataphoric pro-forms to be projecting more talk. Projection is a crucial interactive resource, as it enables speakers to align with the ongoing talk and to initiate subsequent contributions in a timely manner. The study looks at how Estonian pro-forms are systematically used to project either a word (phrase) or a clause in interaction. The patterns discussed are not universal and it will be suggested that projecting word (phrases) with pro-forms is a characteristic of a nonprepositional language with no articles, and that pro-form projection can be especially useful in a free word order language. As many pro-forms do not end up with a co-referential word, projection provides a better account of their function. The article underlines the necessity of studying grammar as a temporal phenomenon.
Notes
