Treść książki

Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
Table1.2.Classicationofconcessiverelations
Reformulation:
Reformulation
contains:
DeniedPheno-
menalCause
Normally,p
causesnotq
Verbhappen
REPRESENTATIONALDOMAIN
extra-linguisticreal-worldconcessive
relations
DeniedMotive
forDoing
Normally,p
leadstheagent
todonotq
Pro-predicatedo
this/doso
DeniedMotive
forThinkingand
Speaking(Epi-
stemicrelation)
Normally,from
pthespeaker
wouldconclude
thatnotq
Anyverbof
thinking(e.g.
think)
INTERPERSONALDOMAIN
concessiverelationsbetween
successiveillocutions
DeniedMotive
forSpeaking
(SpeechAct
relation)
Normally,ifp
thenthespeaker
wouldnotbe
saying(asking/
requesting/
advising,etc.)
thatq
Verbumdicendi
(e.g.say)
Source:basedonLatos2009:99.
Therepresentational-domainsubcategoriesofconcessivesentences,alsore-
ferredtoasinstancesof“blockedcausality”(Latos2009:99),havebeenexem-
pliedbythefollowingsentences:
Example1.9
(a)Theglassdidn’tbreak[ithappened]althoughitfelldownoffthetable.
(b)Hecontinuedworking[hedidso]althoughhewastired.
AsproposedbyLatos,Example1.9.acanbeparaphrasedasNormally,
pcausesnotq,whilethesentenceinExample1.9.bcanbereformulatedas
Normally,pleadstheagenttodonotq.Theinterpersonal-domainsubcatego-
ries,ontheotherhand,canbeobservedinExample1.10.Here,theEpistemic
concessiverelationfoundinExample1.10.acanberepresentedbytheNormally,
frompthespeakerwouldconcludethatnotqformula,whereastheSpeechAct
concessiverelationinExample1.10.bcanbeseenasrepresentinganobstacle
totherealisationofthespeechactperformedinthemainclause:Normally,if
pthenthespeakerwouldnotbesaying(asking/requesting/advising,etc.)thatq.
Example1.10
(a)Heisinhisofce[Ithinkandsayit]althoughhedoesn’tanswerthe
phone.
(b)Mobilephonesareindispensable[Ithinkandsayit]althoughtheycan
harmourbrain.
ItcanbeobservedthatthetypologyofconcessivesproposedbyLatos-fol-
lowingtheassumptionthatcausalityentailsphenomenalcausesandarangeof
24