Errors in the Perception of Casual Conversation
Gerrit J. Dimmendaal
William RitchieundTej Bhatia
International Review of Pragmatics 1 (2009) 249–292 © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2009 DOI 10.1163/187730909X12535267111570 brill.nl/irp 1 Example (1a) is taken from Perini ( 2002 : §39.3), and (1b) is example (7.51b) in Azevedo ( 2005 ). Double Subjects and Conventional Implicatures William
Orality and the Body in the Work of Harris, Philip, Allen, and Brand
Maria Caridad Casas
Through fluid use of code- and mode-switching, the movement of Brand and Philip between creole and standard English, and written orality and standard writing forms part of their meanings. Allen’s eye-spellings precisely indicate stereotypical creole sounds, yet use the phonological system of standard English. On stage, Allen projects a black female body in the world and as a speaking subject. She thereby shows that the implication of the written in the literary excludes her body’s language (as performance); and she embodies her poetry to realize a ‘language’ alternative to the colonizing literary. Harris’s creole writing helps her project a fragmented personality, a range of dialects enabling quite different personae to emerge within one body. Thus Harris, Brand, Philip, and Allen both project the identity “female and black” and explore this social position in relation to others.
Considering textual multimodality opens up a wide range of material connections. Although written, this poetry is also oral; if oral, then also embodied; if embodied, then also participating in discourses of race, gender, sexuality, and a host of other systems of social organization and individual identity. Finally, the semiotic body as a mode (i.e. as a resource for making meaning) allows written meanings to be made that cannot otherwise be expressed in writing. In every case, Allen, Philip, Harris, and Brand escape the constraints of dominant media, refiguring language via dialect and mode to represent a black feminist sensibility.
The variable usage of usted (es) as second-person object in Spanish
María José Serrano
fact, previous findings on pronominal subject variants in Spanish have shown that both expression and omission of the subject endow a different cognitive perception of clause structure and of the communicative content expressed (Aijón Oliva and Serrano, 2013). This justifies the assumption that the
A view from three public policy discourses
Iga Lehman, Łukasz SułkowskiundPiotr Cap
kind of legitimization is expressed involves ‘a saying verb with the relevant authority as subject’ (1999: 105). In academic discourse source-tagging can be associated with various aspects of intertextuality , a term coined by Kristeva (1966) and used (among many others) by Fairclough (1992a) to refer
. The sentence in (1a) shows an example of Malay transitive construction ( AVO ), whereas (1b) shows an intransitive one ( SV ). Following this convention, “ A ” stands for transitive subject and “ S ” stands for intransitive subject. For the Malay transcripts, sometimes a hyphen or hyphens were added