Correlative Conjunctions

4 Key excerpts on "Correlative Conjunctions"

• 

  eBook - ePub

  Susceptibility vs. Resistance

  Case Studies on Different Structural Categories in Language-Contact Situations

  • Nataliya Levkovych(Author)
  • 2022(Publication Date)
  • De Gruyter

    (Publisher)

  114 – need to be accounted for by theoreticians of language contact. The validity of the theories crucially depends on empirical corroboration. Our paper is intended to enlarge the necessary empirical basis to make future comparative work easier.

  For the purpose of this study, we take the stance of canonical typology (Corbett 2005) and stipulate the following. The canonical conjunction is a free morpheme which links two syntactic units of the same kind – sentences, clauses, phrases, words – and occupies a slot between the two conjuncts.115 We conceive of the canonical conjunction to realize Haspelmath’s (2007: 6) monosyndetic prepositive pattern in which the conjunction belongs to the second conjunct (= A CO-B 116 ). The conjunction specifies the relation that holds between the two conjuncts. In this study, we exclusively take account of coordinating conjunctions and adverbial subordinators as well as general complementizers. Relative pronouns, interrogatives, and sundry connectors remain outside the scope of our investigation. Conjunctions form part of the much larger category of connectors/connectives which, among others, includes discourse particles, etc. We are aware of the existence of less canonical types of conjunctions to which we will come back in due course.

  To make clear what we are talking about, we present a small number of examples of those categories which are of interest for this study. The two instances of the alternative conjunction o ‘or’ in (1) illustrate the canonical conjunction in coordinative function.117

  Superficially, the Mapuche example seems to host a correlative construction of the EITHER -OR -type. However, on closer inspection, with the help of the square brackets, it turns out that the first o links the two clauses whereas the second o relates the two NPs of the second clause to each other.118 We are facing a loan conjunction because Mapuche has borrowed Spanish o ‘or’ although the replica language boasts the autochthonous synonym kam

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics

  • Hadumod Bussmann, Kerstin Kazzazi, Gregory Trauth, Kerstin Kazzazi, Gregory Trauth(Authors)
  • 2006(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  (when, before) relations.

  References

  ⇒ co-ordination

  2 ⇒ co-ordination

  3 In formal logic, connection of two elementary propositions p and q by the logical particle (⇒ logical connective) and, the resulting proposition of which is true only if both parts of the proposition (=conjuncts) p and q are true. The compound proposition Tokyo is the capital of Japan, and Tokyo is a European city has a false truth value because the second half of the proposition is false. The following (two-value) truth table represents a definition of conjunction:

  p	q	p∧q
  t	t	t
  t	f	f
  f	t	f
  f	f	f

  In everyday language and is realized as a conjunction by also, as well as, besides, in addition, not only…but also, both…and. In contrast with everyday use, however, the logical conjunction and does not distinguish between and and but nor temporally between the propositions (cf. The horse stumbled and fell down in contrast to The horse fell down and stumbled, that is, p∧q is equally logical as q∧p). Nor do both parts of the proposition necessarily have to be semantically related, that is, be in a communicatively relevant relation. The term ‘conjunction’ refers both to the function of the two-place sentence operator and as well as to the resulting proposition defined by it. With the aid of set theory, conjunction can be characterized semantically as the intersection set of both model sets that make the connected propositions true (⇒ set)

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Contrast

  Adversative and Concessive Relations and their Expressions in English, German, Spanish, Portuguese on Sentence and Text Level

  • Elisabeth Rudolph(Author)
  • 2012(Publication Date)
  • De Gruyter

    (Publisher)

  Thus but is subsumed 94 under the conjunctions usually connecting two coordinate members, and equally as one of the conjunctions that may connect words or groups of words. Some of the other adversative connectives (yet, however) appear under adverbs 95 that may con-nect the coordinate members of a compound sentence, noting that they are usually separated by a clear pause. 3.3.3. Halliday / Hasan 1976 — Cohesion in English This book is not a grammar, but it deals with the semantic features of grammati-cal items related to sentence connection and therefore can be considered as completing grammars. It filled the theoretical gap in the syntax of sentence connection and text linguistics at a time when syntactical studies did not look beyond the limits of the simple sentence. The authors emphasize 96 that cohesion is a semantic relation realized through the lecixogrammatical system of a lan-guage. They distinguish five types of cohesion: reference, substitution and ellip-sis, which are grammatical, lexical cohesion, and conjunction, which is mainly grammatical, but with a lexical component in it. In the chapter Conjunction 97 , the authors develop their ideas about a spe-cial type of semantic relation between sentences in a text where the conjunctive elements are cohesive not in themselves but indirectly, expressing certain mean-ings which presuppose the presence of other components in the discourse. By conjunction they mean a semantic relation which is a specification of the way in which what is to follow is systematically connected to what came before. One of the first examples to demonstrate that conjunctive relations constitute a very generalized component in the semantic system taking various forms is the following adversative relation 98 : 94 cf. Zandvoort 1969, 227. 95 cf. Zandvoort 1969, 228. 96 cf. Halliday/Hasan 1976, 6: Cohesion is a semantic relation. But, like all components of the semantic system, it is realized through the lexicogrammatical system.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  When Words Collide

  • Lauren Kessler, Duncan McDonald(Authors)
  • 2015(Publication Date)
  • Cengage Learning EMEA

    (Publisher)

  In this first example, a subordinating conjunction (underlined) intro-duces a dependent clause: Unless management and labor can come to an agreement, the strike will begin at midnight. The most common subordinating conjunctions are: after although as as if before how if since so through unless while Pay careful attention to use of the subordinating conjunction as if . Be wary of substitutes for it; a common error is to use the preposition like : It looks like it will snow today. Remember that prepositions cannot link a clause—only a phrase or single word. In the previous sentence, a writer has two correct choices: It looks as if it will snow today. It looks like snow today. Correlative Conjunctions These conjunctions operate in pairs because they join words, phrases and clauses to provide balance: This class is both challenging and inspiring. Neither the players nor the coach has met with the media. (Note: In either/or and neither/nor constructions, the noun closest to the verb controls the number of the verb, as in coach has ...) The most common Correlative Conjunctions are: both ... and not only ... but also either ... or whether ... or neither ... nor Adverbs that look like conjunctions Words such as accordingly, consequently, however, moreover, nevertheless and therefore appear to have linking qualities. However, they are adverbs inserted between two independent clauses to provide transition or a change in flow, Copyright 201 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. 62 Part 1 Understanding Grammar and Style which is why they also are called conjunctive adverbs .

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book