1 / 35
文档名称:

The Present of the English Future - Grammatical Variation and Collocations in Discourse.pdf

格式:pdf   页数:35
下载后只包含 1 个 PDF 格式的文档,没有任何的图纸或源代码,查看文件列表

如果您已付费下载过本站文档,您可以点这里二次下载

The Present of the English Future - Grammatical Variation and Collocations in Discourse.pdf

上传人:mkt365 2013/11/22 文件大小:0 KB

下载得到文件列表

The Present of the English Future - Grammatical Variation and Collocations in Discourse.pdf

文档介绍

文档介绍:The Present of the English Future: Grammatical Variation and
Collocations in Discourse
Rena Torres Cacoullos
James A. Walker
Language, Volume 85, Number 2, June 2009, pp. 321-354 (Article)
Published by Linguistic Society of America
DOI: .0110
For additional information about this article
.torres-
Access Provided by Bilkent Universitesi at 02/10/11 1:50PM GMT
THE PRESENT OF THE ENGLISH FUTURE:
GRAMMATICAL VARIATION AND COLLOCATIONS IN DISCOURSE
RENA TORRES CACOULLOS JAMES A. WALKER
The Pennsylvania State University York University
We use the variationist method to elucidate the expression of future time in English, examining
multiple grammaticalization in the same domain (will and going to). Usage patterns show that
the choice of form is not determined by invariant semantic readings such as proximity, certainty,
willingness, or intention. Rather, particular instances of each general construction occupy lexical,
syntactic, and pragmatic niches. While putative differences in meaning are largely neutralized in
discourse, grammaticalization paths are reflected in particular constructions of different degrees
of lexical specificity, which bear different nuances of meaning or tenacious patterns of distribution
inherited from once-meaningful associations. We conclude that collocations contribute to the
shape of grammatical variation.*
Keywords: variation, future, English, collocation, construction, grammaticalization path
1. INTRODUCTION: FORM-FUNCTION ASYMMETRY IN DISCOURSE. Contrary to idealiza-
tions of isomorphism in linguistic form-function relationships—‘one form for one
meaning, and one meaning for one form’(as Bolinger (1977:x) puts it)—language use
is characterized by form-function asymmetry: that is, choices among different construc-
tions serving generally similar discourse functions (Labov 1969, Sankoff & Thibault
1981). This heterogeneity i