Ranking for cognitive salience of events and coding them into a sentence format

Badio, Janusz

dc.contributor.author	Badio, Janusz
dc.contributor.editor	Badio, Janusz
dc.date.accessioned	2021-02-01T12:19:32Z
dc.date.available	2021-02-01T12:19:32Z
dc.date.issued	2020
dc.identifier.citation	Badio, J. (2020). Ranking for cognitive salience of events and coding them into a sentence format. In. J. Badio (Ed.), Categories and Units in Language and Linguistics, (pp. 21-31). Łódź–Kraków–Wałbrzych: WUŁ–Agent PR–Państwowa Wyższa Szkoła Zawodowa im. Angelusa Silesiusa, http://dx.doi.org/10.18778/8142-988-7.03	pl_PL
dc.identifier.isbn	978-83-8142-988-7
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/11089/33261
dc.description.abstract	This article discusses the use of different syntactic options in the construal of events. The examples selected for presentation and analysis come from a study by Badio (2014). This work understood construal to be non-linguistic, mental or conceptual, i.e. related to thought, whereas the term coding was reserved for the use of form to signal aspects of a conceptualisation. The present work focuses on demonstrating that if they are prominent, events tend to be coded with finite verb forms (of the superordinate) clause, followed by participial and infinitive constructions. The former contain the full processual profiles when they are used to relate the main participants, the subject and object. Infinitives and participles tend to be less cognitively salient, whereas nominalisations and other non-verbal options background the processual profile of an event. As a consequence, events coded with them are less salient within a clause or a sentence.	pl_PL
dc.language.iso	en	pl_PL
dc.publisher	Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego	pl_PL
dc.relation.ispartof	Categories and Units in Language and Linguistics;
dc.relation.ispartofseries	Łódzkie Studia z Językoznawstwa Angielskiego i Ogólnego;10
dc.rights	Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Międzynarodowe	*
dc.rights.uri	http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/	*
dc.subject	construal	pl_PL
dc.subject	event	pl_PL
dc.subject	coding	pl_PL
dc.subject	verb forms	pl_PL
dc.subject	nominalisation	pl_PL
dc.subject	cognitive prominence	pl_PL
dc.title	Ranking for cognitive salience of events and coding them into a sentence format	pl_PL
dc.type	Book chapter	pl_PL
dc.page.number	21-31	pl_PL
dc.contributor.authorAffiliation	Uniwersytet Łódzki, Wydział Filologiczny, Katedra Językoznawstwa Angielskiego i Ogólnego	pl_PL
dc.identifier.eisbn	978-83-8142-989-4
dc.references	Badio, J. (2014). Construal and Linguistic Coding of Narrative Events. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.	pl_PL
dc.references	Barsalou, L. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577–609.	pl_PL
dc.references	Chafe, W. (1994). Discourse, Consciousness and Time. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.	pl_PL
dc.references	Croft, W. and Cruse D. A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.	pl_PL
dc.references	Fillmore, Ch. (1976). Frame semantics and the nature of language. In Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: Conference on the Origin and Development of Language and Speech, Vol. 280, 20–32.	pl_PL
dc.references	Givón, T. (1992). The grammar of referential coherence as mental processing instructions. Linguistics, 30(1), 5–56.	pl_PL
dc.references	Givón, T. (1994). The pragmatics of de-transitive voice: Functional and typological aspects of inversion. Voice and inversion, 3, 44.	pl_PL
dc.references	Goldbreg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.	pl_PL
dc.references	Koffka, K. (1935). Principles of Gestalt Psychology. New York: Harcourt, Brace.	pl_PL
dc.references	Köhler, W. (1929). Gestalt Psychology. New York: Liveright.	pl_PL
dc.references	Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.	pl_PL
dc.references	Langacker, R. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume 2, Descriptive Applications. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.	pl_PL
dc.references	Langacker, R. (2008). Cognitive Grammar, A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.	pl_PL
dc.references	Lambrecht, K. & Polinsky, M. (1997). Typological variation in sentence-focus constructions. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 33, 189–206.	pl_PL
dc.references	Maruszewski, T. 1996. Psychologia poznawcza [Cognitive Psychology]. Warszawa: Polskie Towarzystwo Semiotyczne.	pl_PL
dc.references	Neisser, U. 1967. Cognitive Psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Croft.	pl_PL
dc.references	Neisser, U. 1976. Cognition and Reality. San Francisco: Freeman.	pl_PL
dc.references	Semantics, F. C. J. F., & Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Linguistics in the morning calm. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co, 111–137.	pl_PL
dc.references	Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a Conceptual Semantics, Vol. 1 and 2. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.	pl_PL
dc.references	Talmy, L. (2007). Attention phenomena. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford Hanbook of Cognitive Linguistics, (pp. 264–294). Oxford: Oxford University Press.	pl_PL
dc.references	Tomlin, R. S. (1995). Focal attention, voice, and word order: an experimental, crosslinguistics study. In P. Downing and M. Noonan (eds.), Word Order in Discourse, (pp. 517–554). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.	pl_PL
dc.references	Quirk, R., Leech, G., and Svartvik, J. (1992 [20th impression]). A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman.	pl_PL
dc.references	Zacks, J. and Tversky, B. (2001). Event structure in perception and conception. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 3–21.	pl_PL
dc.identifier.doi	10.18778/8142-988-7.03