Search Results Heading

MBRLSearchResults

mbrl.module.common.modules.added.book.to.shelf
Title added to your shelf!
View what I already have on My Shelf.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to add the title to your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
    Done
    Filters
    Reset
  • Discipline
      Discipline
      Clear All
      Discipline
  • Is Peer Reviewed
      Is Peer Reviewed
      Clear All
      Is Peer Reviewed
  • Series Title
      Series Title
      Clear All
      Series Title
  • Reading Level
      Reading Level
      Clear All
      Reading Level
  • Year
      Year
      Clear All
      From:
      -
      To:
  • More Filters
      More Filters
      Clear All
      More Filters
      Content Type
    • Item Type
    • Is Full-Text Available
    • Subject
    • Publisher
    • Source
    • Donor
    • Language
    • Place of Publication
    • Contributors
    • Location
19 result(s) for "Boogaart, Ronny"
Sort by:
“Those are Your Words, Not Mine!” Defence Strategies for Denying Speaker Commitment
In response to an accusation of having said something inappropriate, the accused may exploit the difference between the explicit contents of their utterance and its implicatures. Widely discussed in the pragmatics literature are those cases in which arguers accept accountability only for the explicit contents of what they said while denying commitment to the (alleged) implicature (“Those are your words, not mine!”). In this paper, we sketch a fuller picture of commitment denial. We do so, first, by including in our discussion not just denial of implicatures, but also the mirror strategy of denying commitment to literal meaning (e.g. “I was being ironic!”) and, second, by classifying strategies for commitment denial in terms of classical rhetorical status theory (distinguishing between denial, redefinition, an appeal to ‘external circumstances’ or to a ‘wrong judge’). In addition to providing a systematic categorization of our data, this approach offers some clues to determine when such a defence strategy is a reasonable one and when it is not.
Extending the Scope of Construction Grammar
The field of constructionist linguistics is rapidly expanding, as research on a broad variety of language phenomena is increasingly informed by constructionist ideas about grammar. This volume is comprised of 11 original research articles representing several emerging new research directions in construction grammar, which, together, offer a rich picture of the various directions in which the field seems to be moving.
Dat als
Dutch style guides and teaching methods consider the direct sequence of the subordinating conjunctions dat ‘that’ and als ‘if’ a stylistic lapse. It is advised to rewrite sentences containing the sequence by repositioning the conditional als-clause to the final position of the sentence. This study aims to find out to what extent this stylistic lapse actually occurs in several types of texts, and in which situations the aforementioned advice is suitable. We use corpus data from different modes and registers, we provide an overview of language advice from grammars, style guides and teaching methods, and we provide a comparison of Dutch dat als to the treatment of that if in English usage guides. Finally, we analyze the effects of the proposed reformulations, focusing on the function of the conditional clause in context. By doing so, we aim to formulate an informed view on the wide-spread advice concerning dat als ‘that if’, and we aim to refine the advice available in the literature.
Discussion of Robert S. Kirsner, Qualitative-quantitative Analyses of Dutch and Afrikaans Grammar and Lexicon
From the moment Robert Kirsner’s book Qualitative-quantitative Analyses of Dutch and Afrikaans Grammar and Lexicon (John Benjamins, 2014) appeared, it was clear to us that this occasion should not go unnoticed in the journal Nederlandse Taalkunde/Dutch Linguistics. In this respect, there is a difference with Cognitive Linguistics, which prefers ‘richer’ (polysemic) descriptions, in which different uses of the same sign are considered as part of the linguistic knowledge of the native speaker, not as different interpretations-in-context, as the Columbia School sees it. For Columbia School researchers, language use offers the point of departure for developing hypotheses about how the system is structured, whereas generative grammar trusts intuitions and phenomena of language acquisition as providing the primary access to the object of study, being the language system.