Expressives and Expressivity

McCready, Eric

doi:10.2478/opli-2014-0004

Cited by 18 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As a result, the role of expressive means on both semantic and structural levels dramatically increases. The division of the unified linguistic category of expressivity according to the layers of its realization on the semantic and structural levels is thoroughly discussed by Potts (2007) and McReady (2014). In our previous studies we justified the conceptual approach to the language expressivity treated as an overarching category which encompasses a whole spectrum of means aimed at the expression of the feelings as well as the enhancement of the persuasive power of the utterance (Kharkovskaya & Starostina, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

English Announcements Of Cultural Events: Structural And Semantic Approach To Expressiveness

Cherkunova¹

2020

European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

English Announcements Of Cultural Events: Structural And Semantic Approach To Expressiveness

Cherkunova¹

2020

European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…McCready (2014) mentions another familiar example, namely the presuppositions triggered by the definite article in languages like English. In at least some contexts, the presupposition associated with this article (existence of a uniquely identifiable referent) cannot be precisely expressed as a presupposition in languages like Japanese and Chinese, which lack a definite article.…”

Section: Must Presuppositions Be Preserved? Can They Be?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Translating Presuppositions

Kroeger

2019

The Bible Translator

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Expressing source language (SL) presuppositions as presuppositions in the receptor language (RL) is sometimes impossible, due to linguistic differences between the languages. In other cases it can cause problems of comprehension or naturalness for RL readers, especially when the “presupposition” constitutes new information to the reader. The most common solution to such problems is to express the presupposed content as a separate assertion. This strategy preserves the propositional content of the original but distorts the information packaging. Another strategy that may be useful in such cases is to render the problematic SL presupposition as a conventional implicature, preserving the “backgrounded” status of the presupposed information without triggering an inference that this information is already known to the addressee.

show abstract

“…Both tests are as far as we know not unequivocal and can be difficult to apply. Further criteria such as translatability (McCready, 2014 ) may also exist.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 27 Furthermore the non-translatability of socio-emotive content (McCready, 2014 ) is also captured by the link between intrusion and specific exponents in the Meaning First approach. …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Generative Grammar: A Meaning First Approach

Sauerland

Αλεξιαδου

2020

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The theory of language must predict the possible thought—signal (or meaning—sound or sign) pairings of a language. We argue for a Meaning First architecture of language where a thought structure is generated first. The thought structure is then realized using language to communicate the thought, to memorize it, or perhaps with another purpose. Our view contrasts with the T-model architecture of mainstream generative grammar, according to which distinct phrase-structural representations—Phonetic Form (PF) for articulation, Logical Form (LF) for interpretation—are generated within the grammar. At the same time, our view differs from early transformational grammar and generative semantics: We view the relationship between the thought structure and the corresponding signal as one of compression. We specify a formal sketch of compression as a choice between multiple possible pronounciations balancing the desire to transmit information against the effort of pronounciation. The Meaning First architecture allows a greater degree of independence between thought structures and the linguistic signal. We present three arguments favoring this type of independence. First we argue that scopal properties can be better explained if we only compare thought structures independent of the their realization as a sentence. Secondly, we argue that Meaning First architecture allows contentful late insertion, an idea that has been argued for in Distributed Morphology already, but as we argue is also motivated by the division of the logical and socio-emotive meaning content of language. Finally, we show that only the Meaning First architecture provides a satisfying account of the mixing of multiple languages by multilingual speakers, especially for cases of simultaneous articulation across two modalities in bimodal speakers. Our view of the structure of grammar leads to a reassessment of priorities in linguistic analyses: while current mainstream work is often focused on establishing one-to-one relationships between concepts and morphemes, our view makes it plausible that primitive concepts are frequently marked indirectly or unpronounced entirely. Our view therefore assigns great value to the understanding of logical primitives and of compression.

show abstract

Expressives and Expressivity

Cited by 18 publications

References 26 publications

English Announcements Of Cultural Events: Structural And Semantic Approach To Expressiveness

English Announcements Of Cultural Events: Structural And Semantic Approach To Expressiveness

Translating Presuppositions

Generative Grammar: A Meaning First Approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About