Treść książki

Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
CHAPTERONE
CONCESSION:ANOVERVIEWOFAPPROACHES
Thepotentialofastrategybymeansofwhichcontrovertiblepointscanbe
deftlyrebuttedwasdulyrecognisedasearlyasinancientrhetoric,withtheg-
ureofadmittance-theGreekparomologiaortheLatinconcessio-occupying
aprominentplaceamongotherrhetoricaldevices.Sincethen,thephenomenon
ofconcessivityhasbeenapproachedfromvariousresearchperspectives,evolv-
ingwiththedevelopmentoflinguistictheoriesandconceptualframeworks.In
whatfollows,anoverviewofpreviouscontributionstothestudyofconcession
willbeprovided,withemphasisplacedonthemodelappliedinthecurrentre-
search,thatisthediscourse-pragmaticunderstandingofConcessionseenasan
interactionalsequenceofmoves.
1.1.Semantic-syntacticapproachtoconcession
1.1.1.Deningconcessiveconnection
Placingitinthebroadercontextofcontrastrelations,earlierinvestigations
ofconcession,whichproliferatedespeciallyvisiblyduringthelastdecadeof
the20thcenturyandtherstdecadeofthe21stcentury(e.g.König1991;Ford
1993;Rudolph1996;Grote,LenkeandStede1997;DiMeola1998;Crevels
2000a,2000b;Iten2000;KönigandSiemund2000;Verhagen2000;Noordman
2001;Takahashi2008;Latos2009),focusedpredominantlyontheinterclausal
interpretationofconcession,withprimarymarkersofthisrelationrecognised
onthesentencelevelmarkingthecentreofresearch.Yet,itneedstoberecog-
nisedthat,howeveroverlapping,theanalysts’viewsonconcessiondifferedand,
therefore,theirndingsdidnotnecessarilyrefertothesamephenomenonthat
receivedtheumbrellatermofconcession.Accordingly,variousconceptshave
beenemployedinordertoaccountforconcessionsemantically,amongwhich
thenotionofpotentialobstacle(e.g.Mensing1891;Reinhardt1997),semantic
oppositionordenialofexpectation(e.g.Lakoff1971),frustratedexpectationor
surprisingconsequence(e.g.Quirk1954;König1991;Rudolph1996;Grote,
LenkeandStede1997),negationofaclausalrelation(e.g.Hermodsson1973;
17