Dependency, framing, scope? The syntagmatic structure of sentences of speech or thought representation

Bibliographic Data

ID4797478
AuthorsLieven Vandelanotte (0000-0001-5935-5517, University of Namur, corresponding author)
Year2008
Volume59
Issue1-2
Pages55-82
Publication date2008-04-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueWORD (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0043-7956 • E-ISSN: 2373-5112
PublisherInforma UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/00437956.2008.11432581
OpenAlexW1934343519
LanguageEN
Citations received6
References cited29

In this paper*, I consider several ways in which the syntagmatic structure of sentences of speech or thought representation has been modelled. I reject the traditional constituency view according to which reported clauses of indirect and even of direct speech or thought are direct objects of the reporting verb. From Halliday's (1985/1994) and McGregor's (1997) concepts of projection and framing, respectively, I take the idea that it is the entire reporting clause rather than merely the reporting verb which enters into a relation with the reported clause. At the same time, I do not fully adopt either of their analyses, but propose rather to make a distinction between representational and subjectified forms of speech or thought representation, the former involving an asymmetrical relationship of conceptual dependence between the two component clauses in the sense of Langacker (1987: Ch. 8), the latter having a subjectified reporting clause functioning as an interpersonal, 'scopal operator in the sense of McGregor (1997: Ch. 6

Dependency (UML · Framing (construction · Indirect speech · Linguistics · Scope (computer science · Syntagmatic analysis · Artificial Intelligence · Computer Science · History · Language, Metaphor, and Cognition · Linguistics and Discourse Analysis · Philosophy · Psychology · Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub