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 | |