Sobre las conjunciones coordinantes adversativas

  1. Fernando García Murga
Revista:
Theoria: an international journal for theory, history and foundations of science

ISSN: 0495-4548

Año de publicación: 2017

Volumen: 32

Número: 3

Páginas: 303-327

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.1387/THEORIA.16192 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Otras publicaciones en: Theoria: an international journal for theory, history and foundations of science

Resumen

Adversative coordinative conjunctions necessarily involve a contrast between two elements related to the utterances they coordinate. Contrast is a heterogeneous concept. In this article, three types of contrast are identified: restrictive, corrective and additive. These types give rise to three different readings of the adversative coordinative conjunctions. In this work, a semantic function for each type of contrast is proposed, and the presuppositional character of restrictive contrast is defended. These hypotheses lead us towards the discourses in which the coordinative adversative conjuncts are inserted. The discourse has to contain alternatives such that when the type of contrast is not univocally lexicalized, the alternatives will guide the interpretation of the conjunction.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Anscombre, Jean-Claude y Oswald Ducrot. 1977. Deux mais en français? Lingua 43/1: 23-40.
  • Anscombre, Jean-Claude y Oswald Ducrot. 1983. L’argumentation dans la langue. Bruselas: Mardaga.
  • Bach, Kent. 1999. The myth of conventional implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy 22/4: 327-366.
  • Bîlbîie, Gabriela y Grégoire Winterstein. 2009. Expressing Contrast in Romanian: the conjunction iar. En Janine Berns, Haike Jacobs y Tobias Scheer, eds., Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2009: Selected Papers from ‘Going Romance’ Nice 2009, 1-18. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Blakemore, Diane. 1989. Denial and contrast: a relevance theoretic analysis of But. Linguistics and Philosophy 12/1: 15-37.
  • Blakemore, Diane. 2000. Indicators and procedures: nevertheless and but. Journal of Linguistics 36/3: 463-486.
  • Blakemore, Diane. 2002. Relevance and Linguistic Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Chierchia, Genaro. 1995. Individual-Level Predicates as Inherent Generics. En Gregory N. Carlson y Francis Jeffry Pelletier, eds., The Generic Book, 176-223. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Chierchia, Genaro y Sally McConnell-Ginet. 2000. Meaning and grammar: An introduction into semantics. Second edition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Dascal, Marcelo y Tamar Katriel. 1977. Between Semantics and Pragmatics: The two types of ‘but’ –Hebrew ‘aval’ and ‘ela’. Theoretical Linguistics 4/1-3: 143-172.
  • Flamenco, Luis. 1999. Las construcciones concesivas y adversativas. En Ignacio Bosque y Violeta Demonte, eds., Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española. Vol. 3, 3805-3878. Madrid: Espasa.
  • Flamenco, Luis. 2011. Sobre la versatilidad de aunque. En M. Victoria Escandell et al., eds., 60 problemas de gramática, 412-427. Madrid: Akal.
  • García Murga, Fernando. 1998. Las presuposiciones lingüísticas. Bilbao: Servicio editorial UPV/EHU.
  • García Murga, Fernando. 2016. Logical and discursive properties of modality. Quaderni di Semantica 37/2: 37-60.
  • Grice, H. Paul. 1975. Logic and Conversation. En Peter Cole and Jerry Morgan, eds., Syntax and Semantics Volume 3: Speech Acts, 41-58. New York: Academic Press.
  • Grice, H. Paul. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
  • Horn, Laurence. 1991. Given as new: When redundant affirmation isn’t. Journal of Pragmatics 15/4: 313-336.
  • Izutsu, Mitsuko. 2008. Contrast, concessive, and corrective: Toward a comprehensive study of opposition relations. Journal of Pragmatics 40: 646-675.
  • Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
  • Karttunen, Lauri. 1973. Presuppositions of Compound Sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 4/2: 169-193.
  • Karttunen, Lauri y Stanley Peters. 1979. Conventional implicature. En Choon-Kyu Oh y David Dinnen, eds., Syntax ans Semantics 11 : Presupposition, 1-56. New York: Academic Press.
  • Kratzer, Angelika. 1981. The notional category of modality. En Hans J. Eikmeyer y Hannes Rieser, eds., Words, Worlds, and Contexts, 38-74. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
  • Kratzer, Angelika. 2012. Modals and Conditionals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Lakoff, Robin. 1971. If’s, and’s, and but’s about Conjunction. En Charles J. Fillmore y D. Terence Langendoen, eds., Studies in Linguistic Semantics, 115-149. Holt, Reinhart and Winston.
  • Lang, Ewald. 1984. The Semantics of Coordination. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Malchukov, Andrej. 2004. Towards a Semantic Typology of Adversative and Contrast Marking. Journal of Semantics 21/2: 177-198.
  • Rieber, Steven. 1997. Conventional implicatures as tacit performatives. Linguistics and Philosophy 20/1: 51-72.
  • Roberts, Craig. 1996. Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics, Working Papers in Linguistics, 91-136. Ohio: Ohio State University Department of Linguistics.
  • Sánchez de Zavala, Víctor. 1998. Hacia la pragmática (psicológica). Madrid: Visor.
  • Sæbø, Kjell. 2003. Presupposition and Contrast: German aber as a Topic Particle. En Matthias Weisgerber, ed., Proceedings of the Conference «Sub 7 Sinn und Bedeutung» Arbeitspapier 114, 257-271. Konstanz: Universität Konstanz.
  • Umbach, Carla. 2004. On the Notion of Contrast in Information Structure and Discourse Structure. Journal of Semantics 21/2: 155-175.
  • Vallée, Richard. 2008. Conventional implicature revisited. Journal of Pragmatics 40/3: 407-430.
  • Van der Sandt, Rob A. 1992. Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics, 9/4: 333-377.
  • Winter, Yoad y Mori Rimon. 1994. Contrast and Implication in Natural Language. Journal of Semantics 11/4: 365-406.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet