Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 3 – uploaded by Francesca Masini

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
(especially in spoken language). It is therefore important to stress that the current attempt to propose a unified account of lists does not mean that all these phe- nomena are (regarded as) equal. For instance, a list operating at the morphological/lexical level (e.g., a co-compound or an irreversible binomial), despite sharing structural and semantic features with syntactic lists of the same type, will obviously have distinct proper- ties. First, it will be lexically fixed, with X, and X, corresponding to specific word-level lexical items, with no more room for other Xs (e.g. the binomial high and low). Second, the list will be internally cohe- sive and fixed, as we would expect from a stored, lexicalized expres- sion: we cannot interrupt it, we cannot swap the conjuncts, and so on. These properties are not shared by ‘syntactic’, online-created lists such as dogs, cats, and birds (intended reading: ‘pets’; cf. (54a). This list is not lexically fixed: we could use other pet names, such us turtles, bunnies and goldfish (although prototype effects prob- ably play a role here: dogs and cats are prototypical exemplars of pets). And the composition of the list is not fixed: any of the three nouns could be dropped without destroying the collective list (dogs and birds), and at the same time more nouns could be added (dogs, cats, turtles, and birds). The order of the conjuncts of this list could be altered without changing the overall meaning. And full phrases and clauses can be used, too, as we have seen. Table 2 sketchily illustrates (some of) the different contraints that seem to be at work in morphological/lexical lists on the one hand and in more syntactic, discourse-level lists on the other (for further discussion on morpho- logical/lexical lists see Masini & Arcodia this issue).

Table 2 (especially in spoken language). It is therefore important to stress that the current attempt to propose a unified account of lists does not mean that all these phe- nomena are (regarded as) equal. For instance, a list operating at the morphological/lexical level (e.g., a co-compound or an irreversible binomial), despite sharing structural and semantic features with syntactic lists of the same type, will obviously have distinct proper- ties. First, it will be lexically fixed, with X, and X, corresponding to specific word-level lexical items, with no more room for other Xs (e.g. the binomial high and low). Second, the list will be internally cohe- sive and fixed, as we would expect from a stored, lexicalized expres- sion: we cannot interrupt it, we cannot swap the conjuncts, and so on. These properties are not shared by ‘syntactic’, online-created lists such as dogs, cats, and birds (intended reading: ‘pets’; cf. (54a). This list is not lexically fixed: we could use other pet names, such us turtles, bunnies and goldfish (although prototype effects prob- ably play a role here: dogs and cats are prototypical exemplars of pets). And the composition of the list is not fixed: any of the three nouns could be dropped without destroying the collective list (dogs and birds), and at the same time more nouns could be added (dogs, cats, turtles, and birds). The order of the conjuncts of this list could be altered without changing the overall meaning. And full phrases and clauses can be used, too, as we have seen. Table 2 sketchily illustrates (some of) the different contraints that seem to be at work in morphological/lexical lists on the one hand and in more syntactic, discourse-level lists on the other (for further discussion on morpho- logical/lexical lists see Masini & Arcodia this issue).

Related Figures (5)

In this respect, it is worth to mention that lists can also be co-con- structed by two or more speakers in dialogues and conversations (see Section 4.3). An example is given in (10), taken from the Santa Barbara Corpus (SBC), where the main referent in object position is realized four times through the intervention of two speakers. Again, a list can be recognized, despite hesitations and insertions (u=m, like um).
In this respect, it is worth to mention that lists can also be co-con- structed by two or more speakers in dialogues and conversations (see Section 4.3). An example is given in (10), taken from the Santa Barbara Corpus (SBC), where the main referent in object position is realized four times through the intervention of two speakers. Again, a list can be recognized, despite hesitations and insertions (u=m, like um).
The very same structure can also be represented horizontally as in Figure 2, where: braces ‘{ }’ delimit the list; the pipe sign ‘|’ separates the conjuncts; round brackets “( )’ indicate optionality; the circumflex accent ‘*’ marks list markers, namely coordinators/con- nectives and list completers; and finally square brackets [ ] enclose the list surroundings, namely projection components (including list introducers) and post-detailing components. In addition, as already mentioned, we may have insertions at virtually any point of the list structure.
The very same structure can also be represented horizontally as in Figure 2, where: braces ‘{ }’ delimit the list; the pipe sign ‘|’ separates the conjuncts; round brackets “( )’ indicate optionality; the circumflex accent ‘*’ marks list markers, namely coordinators/con- nectives and list completers; and finally square brackets [ ] enclose the list surroundings, namely projection components (including list introducers) and post-detailing components. In addition, as already mentioned, we may have insertions at virtually any point of the list structure.
Figure 3. A functional typology of lists: denotation vs formulation.
Figure 3. A functional typology of lists: denotation vs formulation.
Table 1. Comparing features of non-compositional denotation lists. Francesca Masini, Caterina Mauri, Paola Pietrandrea As already mentioned, a crucial role in distiguishing different types of lists seems to be played by the semantic relation among the conjuncts (PARAMETER 7), but other parameters are also relevant and drive the interpretation, such as the number of conjuncts (which sets Generalizing Denotation Lists apart from the rest), the nature of syndesis (conjunctive and/or disjunctive), determination for nomi- nals (which seems to differentiate Categorizing Denotation Lists and Approximating Denotation Lists), and list markers and surroundings, since each list displays a certain array of those (if present at all). This preliminary picture points to a situation where each type of rr 06g og ee ie | a as | ca = _ a | Fy ye a | ry ee: ee so a 4.
Table 1. Comparing features of non-compositional denotation lists. Francesca Masini, Caterina Mauri, Paola Pietrandrea As already mentioned, a crucial role in distiguishing different types of lists seems to be played by the semantic relation among the conjuncts (PARAMETER 7), but other parameters are also relevant and drive the interpretation, such as the number of conjuncts (which sets Generalizing Denotation Lists apart from the rest), the nature of syndesis (conjunctive and/or disjunctive), determination for nomi- nals (which seems to differentiate Categorizing Denotation Lists and Approximating Denotation Lists), and list markers and surroundings, since each list displays a certain array of those (if present at all). This preliminary picture points to a situation where each type of rr 06g og ee ie | a as | ca = _ a | Fy ye a | ry ee: ee so a 4.
Related topics:
Construction GrammarList Constructions
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved