Paola Gaudio. Could Have, Should Have, Would Have Europos Parlamento kalbėtojų požiūris, atsispindintis per modalumą ir vartojant pragmatinius žymeklius debatuose apie hipotetines praeities alternatyvas anglų ir italų kalbomis Europos Parlamento debatuose reguliariai aptariami teisės aktai ir svarbūs sprendimai, turintys įtakos daugiau nei 500 milijonų Europos piliečių gyvenimams. Šiame straipsnyje analizuojamos EP narių kalbos atsižvelgiant į praeities šalutinių sąlygos sakinių vartojimą kartu su pragmatiniais žymekliais, rodančiais kalbėtojo požiūrį į propozicinę prasmę, išreikštą praeities šalutiniais sąlygos sakiniais. Aktualūs pragmatiniai žymekliai buvo suskirstyti į žyminčius tikrumą ir žyminčius netikrumą ar abejojimą, o paskui atitinkamai palyginti. Kadangi tai yra tekstynu remtas tyrimas, taip pat buvo galima palyginti angliškas ir itališkas pasisakymų versijas siekiant patikrinti, ar pragmatinių žymeklių vartojimas nustatytame kontekste yra šiose kalbose pastovus. Rezultatai rodo, kad sąšvelnio pragmatinių žymeklių naudojimas lyginant su stiprinančiais žymekliais yra nereikšmingas, išskyrus žodį perhaps (liet. galbūt) ir itališką jo atitikmenį forse. Kita vertus, vertimai ne visada yra nuoseklūs; visgi nuoseklumo trūkumas neturi įtakos bendroms pragmatinių žymeklių vartojimo tendencijoms, išryškėjusioms abiejuose tekstynuose.
This is a corpus-based study of the debates held in the European Parliament. The focus is on determining what kind of attitude governs parliamentary debates when reference is made to past issues that could have, would have, should have or might have been handled differently. Pragmatic markers and modality are key elements in the expression of the speaker’s attitude, therefore the whole study revolves around the co-occurrence, within a set context horizon, of past conditionals and pragmatic markers. Modality is necessarily involved in both the expression of the speaker’s attitude and in the formation of past conditionals, and can therefore be considered a trait d’union between the discourse- oriented pragmatic markers and the syntax-based conditionals. After an outline of the theoretical framework in which the present research belongs, a few hints are given as to the nature of the texts analysed, and consequently of the institution producing them. Following these introductory sections, an explanation is provided of the aims of the present research and of the methodology applied. Finally, results are analysed in detail in section 6 and the main points are summed up in the conclusions.
Could Have, Should Have, Would Have. The Speaker’s Attitude in Expressing Hypothetical Past Alternatives in English and Italian by Means of Pragmatic Markers and Modality in EU Parliamentary Debates
Paola Gaudio
Writing – Original Draft Preparation
2018-01-01
Abstract
This is a corpus-based study of the debates held in the European Parliament. The focus is on determining what kind of attitude governs parliamentary debates when reference is made to past issues that could have, would have, should have or might have been handled differently. Pragmatic markers and modality are key elements in the expression of the speaker’s attitude, therefore the whole study revolves around the co-occurrence, within a set context horizon, of past conditionals and pragmatic markers. Modality is necessarily involved in both the expression of the speaker’s attitude and in the formation of past conditionals, and can therefore be considered a trait d’union between the discourse- oriented pragmatic markers and the syntax-based conditionals. After an outline of the theoretical framework in which the present research belongs, a few hints are given as to the nature of the texts analysed, and consequently of the institution producing them. Following these introductory sections, an explanation is provided of the aims of the present research and of the methodology applied. Finally, results are analysed in detail in section 6 and the main points are summed up in the conclusions.File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
PAOLA GAUDIO_Could Have, Should Have, Would Have 19445-64605-1-PB.pdf
accesso aperto
Tipologia:
Documento in Versione Editoriale
Licenza:
Creative commons
Dimensione
248.93 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
248.93 kB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri |
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.