All
 
|
 
 


On the semantics of specification (a contrastive analysis of Russian and Italian)
 
PIIS0373658X0000034-6-1
DOI10.31857/S0373658X0000034-6
Publication type Article
Status Published
Authors
Olga Inkova 
Affiliation:
Université de Genève, Geneva, Switzerland
Institute of Informatics Problems of the FRC CSC, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow
Address: Switzerland, Geneva; Russian Federation, Moscow
Emilio Manzotti
Affiliation:
Université de Genève, Geneva, Switzerland
Università della Svizzera Italiana, Lugano, Switzerland
Address: Switzerland, Geneva; Lugano
Journal nameVoprosy Jazykoznanija
EditionIssue 4
Pages82-113
Abstract

The article deals with the logical-semantic relation of specification within the sentence and more generally in discourse. The authors propose as a first step a distinction between two classes of its manifestations: in praesentia and in absentia, and consequently between two semantic types of specification: intensional and extensional. The realization of the former is possible only in praesentia. On the basis of the analysis of specification markers in Russian and Italian, two types of extensional specification can be further distinguished: partial and exhaustive specification, plus four subtypes of the former: a) choice of a relevant element, b) differential choice, c) exemplification, and d) specific case or element. Within the intensional specification, two subtypes are here recognized: a) elaborate precision and b) precision sensu stricto. The analysis carried out thus allows the authors to propose a fully-fledged classification of the relation of specification and to ascribe it, together with the (symmetric) relation of generalization, to the group of mereological discourse relations.

KeywordsItalian, logical-semantic relations, Russian, semantics, specification
Received06.08.2018
Publication date19.09.2018
Number of characters884
Cite   Download pdf To download PDF you should sign in

Price publication: 0

Number of purchasers: 0, views: 1749

Readers community rating: votes 0 

1. Inkova 2017 — Inkova O. Generalization: Definition, discourse functions, markers (in Russian, French, and Italian). Voprosy jazykoznanija. 2017. No. 3. Pp. 52–82.
2. Inkova, Manzotti 2017 — Inkova O., Manzotti E. Tra l’altro, mezhdu prochim, entre autres: Similarities and differences. S”postavitelno ezikoznanie. 2017. No. 4. Pp. 35–47.
3. Moskal’skaya 1981 — Moskal’skaya O. I. Grammatika teksta (posobie po grammatike nemetskogo yazyka dlya institutov i fakul’tetov inostrannykh yazykov: Uchebnoe posobie [Grammar of the text (German grammar for foreign languages universities and schools: A schoolbook)]. Moscow: Vysshaya Shkola, 1981.
4. Nikolaeva 2012 — Nikolaeva T. M. O chem na samom dele napisal Marsel’ Prust? [What did Marcel Proust actually write about?]. Moscow: Yazyki Slavyanskoi Kul’tury, 2012.
5. Otkidych 2017 — Otkidych E. V. Mezhdu prochim. Sluzhebnye slova v leksikograficheskom aspekte. Sheremet’eva E. S., Starodumova E. A., Tyurin P. M. (eds.). Vladivostok: Far Eeastern Federal Univ., 2017. Pp. 263–275.
6. Paillard 1998 — Paillard D. Imenno. Diskursivnye slova russkogo yazyka: opyt kontekstno-semanticheskogo opisaniya. Kiseleva K., Paillard D. (eds.). Moscow: Metatekst, 1998. Pp. 285–293.
7. Priyatkina 2007 — Priyatkina A. F. Constructions with explanatory conjunctions // Priyatkina A. F. Russkii sintaksis v grammaticheskom aspekte (Sintaksicheskie svyazi i konstruktsii). Izbrannye trudy. Vladivostok: Far Eeastern Federal Univ. Publ., 2007. Pp. 180–188.
8. RG-80 — Russkaya grammatika [Russian grammar]: In 2 vol. Shvedova N. Yu. (ed.). Moscow: Nauka, 1980.
9. Rozhdestvenskii 2004 — Rozhdestvenskii Yu. V. Teoriya ritoriki [A theory of rhetoric]. Moscow: Nauka, 2004.
10. Anscombre 1996 — Anscombre J.-Cl. L’opposition surtout / particulièrement et la structuration discursive. Dépendence et intégration syntaxique. Muller Cl. (éd.). Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1996. Pp. 245–256.
11. Anscombre 2001 — Anscombre J.-Cl. Surtout et particulièrement: Le traitement des particules pragmatiques dans le cadre de la théorie des stéréotypes. Quaderns de Filologia. Estudis Lingüístics. 2001. Vol. 6. Pp. 1–22.
12. Antos 1982 — Antos G. Grundlagen einer Theorie des Formulierens. Textherstellung in geschriebener und gesprochener Sprache. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1982.
13. Blakemore 1996 — Blakemore D. Are apposition markers discourse markers? Journal of Linguistics. 1996. Vol. 32. Pp. 325–347.
14. Borillo 1996 — Borillo A. Repérage automatique et identification de la relation lexicale d’hyperonymie. LINX. 1996. Vol. 34–35. Pp. 113–124.
15. Breindl et al. 2014 — Breindl E., Volodina A., Waßner U. H. Handbuch der deutschen Konnektoren 2. Semantik der deutschen Satzverknüpfer. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 2014.
16. Crévenat-Werner 2003 — Crévenat-Werner D. Quand notamment engage la partie. Actes du colloque international de Metz (18, 19, 20 mars 1999). Combettes B., Schnedecker C., Theissen A. (éds.). Paris: Honoré Champion, 2003. Pp. 169–183.
17. Delabre 1984 — Delabre M. Comme opérateur d’inclusion référentielle. Linguisticae Investigationes. 1984. Vol. VIII. No. 1. Pp. 21–36.
18. Fuchs, Le Goffic 2005 — Fuchs C., Le Goffic P. La polysémie de ‘comme’. La Polysémie. Soutet O. (éd.). Paris: Presses de l’Université Paris-Sorbonne, 2005. 
19. Gülich, Kotschi 1987 — Gülich E., Kotschi Th. Reformulierungshandlungen als Mittel der Textkonstitution. Untersuchungen zu französischen Texten aus mündlicher Kommunikation. Satz, Text, sprachliche Handlung. Motsch W. (Hrsg.). Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1987. Pp. 199–261.
20. Hermoso Mellado-Damas 2015 — Hermoso Mellado-Damas A. Étude de l’adverbe spécialement en tant que focalisateur événementiel. Cédille. Revista de estudios franceses. 2015. Vol. 11. Pp. 231–249.
21. Inkova 2017 — Inkova O. Le relazioni logico-semantiche tra gli enunciati: una proposta di classificazione. Studi di linguistica slava. Di Filippo M., Esvan F. (a c. di). Napoli: Il Torcoliere. Pp. 105–124.
22. Lausberg 1990 — Lausberg H. Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1990.
23. Manzotti 1993 — Manzotti E. L’esemplificazione. Natura e funzioni di un procedimento di composizione testuale. L’italiano (e altre lingue). Strumenti e modelli di analisi. Bonini V., Mazzoleni M. (a c. di). Pavia: Gianni Iuculano Editore, 1993. Rp. 47–98.
24. Manzotti 1995 — Manzotti E. Aspetti linguistici della esemplificazione. Versus. 1995. Vol. 70–71. Pp. 49–114.
25. Manzotti 2015 — Manzotti E. Generalizzando. Testualità. Fondamenti, unità, relazioni. Ferrari A., Lala L., Stojmenova R. (a c. di). Firenze: Franco Cesati Editore, 2015. Pp. 205–231.
26. Meyer 1992 — Meyer C. F. Apposition in contemporary English. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1992.
27. Motsch, Pasch 1987 — Motsch W., Pasch R. Illokutive Handlungen. Satz, Text, sprachliche Handlung. Motsch W. (Hrsg.). Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1987. Pp. 11–79.
28. Perelman, Olbrachts-Tyteca 1958 — Perelman Ch., Olbrachts-Tyteca L. Traité de l’argumentation: La nouvelle rhétorique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1958.
29. Prasad et al. 2008 — Prasad R., Dinesh N., Lee A., Miltsakaki E., Robaldo L., Joshi A., Webber B. The Penn Discourse TreeBank 2.0. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2008). Calzolari N., Choukri K., Maegaard B., Mariani J., Odjik J., Piperidis S., Tapias D. (eds.). Paris: European Language Resources Association (ELRA), 2008. Pp. 2961–2968.
30. Sainz 2012 — Sainz E. Tra l’altro: conexión y focalización. Análisis contrastivo con el español. Cuadernos de Filología Italiana. 2012. Vol. 19. Pp. 41–68.
31. Vázquez-Molina 2013 — Vázquez-Molina J. Les particularités de particulièrement. Revue de Sémantique et Pragmatique. 2013. Vol. 33–34. Pp. 269–283.
32. Vergez-Couret 2009 — Vergez-Couret M. Le rôle de l’adverbe notamment dans la mise en oeuvre des relations de discours. French Language Studies. 2009. Vol. 19. Pp. 249–268.
33. Vergez-Couret 2013 — Vergez-Couret M. Étude du comparatif nu plus particulièrement dans la mise en oeuvre des relations de discours. Travaux de Linguistique. 2013. Vol. 67. Pp. 91–113.
34. Weinrich 1993 — Weinrich H. Textgrammatik der deutschen Sprache. Unter Mitarbeit von Thurmair M., Breindl E., Willkop E.-M. Mannheim: Dudenverlag, 1993.
35. Wunderlich 1976 — Wunderlich D. Studien zur Sprechakttheorie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1976.


Additional sources and materials

БАС — Словарь современного русского литературного языка. Т. 1–17. М.: Изд-во АН СССР, 1948–1965.


НКРЯ — Национальный корпус русского языка // http://www.ruscorpora.ru.


НОСС — Новый объяснительный словарь синонимов русского языка / Под общ. рук. акад. Ю. Д. Апресяна. 2-е изд. М.: Языки славянской культуры, 2003.


НОСС — Новый объяснительный словарь синонимов русского языка / Под общ. рук. акад. Ю. Д. Апресяна. 2-е изд. М.: Языки славянской культуры, 2003.


ССС — Прияткина А. Ф., Стародумова Е. А., Сергеева Г. Н., Зайцева Г. Д., Окатова Н. Т., Токарчук И. Н., Крылова Г. М., Жукова Т. А., Петроченко Т. В., Завьялов В. Н. Словарь служебных слов русского языка. Владивосток: ДВГУ, 2001.


GDLI — Battaglia S. Grande Dizionario della Lingua Italiana, diretto da G. Bàrberi Squarotti, Torino: UTET, 1961–2004.


РЕС — Perugia corpus. Università per Stranieri di Perugia // https://www.unistrapg.it/cqpweb


SC — Il Sabatini Coletti. Dizionario della lingua italiana. Milano: RCS Libri — Divisione Education, 2013 (1a ed. Firenze: Giunti, 1997).


VLI — Duro A. (a c. di). Vocabolario della lingua italiana. Roma: Istituto della Enciclopedia italiana, 1986–1994.

Система Orphus

Loading...
Up