Causation and reasoning are different but related types of relationships. This book presents an integrated analysis in accordance with the original principles of Construction Grammar.
This study investigated the undergraduate use of specific English coordinating and subordinating conjunctions based on Azar’s & Kolln’s and Funk’s textbooks, which is (and, but, or, so, because). ...Also, this research intended to compare students who studied in two EFL contexts to explore how the given instructions regarding the use of conjunctions were applied in students’ writing. The data was collected from 26 students studying in two different Saudi universities. First, the data was gathered from (group one), which consisted of 13 participants, who studied at a university in the north-central part of Saudi Arabia, and their major was English Language. However, the second group was inclusive of 13 participants who studied at the Applied Linguistics Department at a university in the middle of Saudi Arabia. The participants were asked to write two to three paragraphs using specific coordinating and subordinating conjunctions. Thus, the researcher collected 26 sampled data containing 13 written paragraphs from each context to compare the participants of the two contexts in the use of the learned conjunctions. The data were analyzed based on the introduced coordinating and subordinating conjunctions in Azar’s & Kolln’s and Funk’s textbooks. The analysis was accomplished by identifying the frequent occurrence of those conjunctions in students’ written data and how those conjunctions were used in joining two or more clauses. The results showed that there were no significant differences in students’ use of those conjunctions, and several participants had challenges in recognizing the function of those simple or common conjunctions. It has been found that those participants of the two contexts had committed the same types of errors when trying to combine their clauses.
La actual crisis ecológica y humanitaria nos ha obligado a observar otras ontologías y composiciones del mundo, abordándolas como inspiraciones o ejemplos. Siempre bajo el riesgo de las trampas de la ...tolerancia y el utilitarismo académico, los otros mundos y sus verdades se han convertido en interlocutores con los cuales dialogar y generar alianzas frente a los desafíos impuestos a la existencia común. Esta propuesta de número monográfico parte de comprender este panorama como un momento novedoso en la relación con la alteridad. Ya no se trata pues solamente de describir la diferencia como parte de una indagación sobre las posibilidades de lo humano, sino de elaborar un diálogo en el cual muchas de las claves para la supervivencia de todos puedan encontrarse en la diferencia. Claramente los peligros de esta tarea son muchos, y ante ello se impone el cuidado. Nos moviliza entonces la pregunta por cómo hacer ese mundo común sin que ese mundo sea unívoco.
Determining the number of discrete operators has been a topic of interest for the scientific community since the introduction of these operators. This paper represents a further stage within this ...topic in the field of operators defined on a finite chain. Mainly, two families of discrete operators are studied: discrete conjunctions that are smooth (a property that is usually considered the equivalent to continuity in discrete settings) and commutative discrete conjunctions with n, the greatest element of the chain, as neutral element, so that only associativity is missing to become discrete t-norms. To determine the cardinality of the first family, we study its explicit representation by alternating sign matrices, obtaining that the cardinality is preserved between both structures and allowing us to relate intrinsic properties of the family of discrete operators with intrinsic properties of such class of matrices. For commutative discrete conjunctions with n as neutral element, we have considered the concepts of n-Gog y n-Magog triangles, allowing us to transform properties of these operators into properties of these triangular arrays; in particular, their cardinality. In this way, an upper bound for the cardinality of discrete t-norms is achieved.
Situated at the interface between corpus linguistics and Systemic Functional Linguistics, this volume focuses on conjunctive markers expressing contrast in English and French. The frequency and ...placement patterns of the markers are analysed using large corpora of texts from two written registers: newspaper editorials and research articles. The corpus study revisits the long-standing but largely unsubstantiated claim that French requires more explicit markers of cohesive conjunction than English and shows that the opposite is in fact the case. Novel insights into the placement preferences of English and French conjunctive markers are provided by a new approach to theme and rheme that attaches more importance to the rheme than previous studies. The study demonstrates the significant benefits of a combined corpus and Systemic Functional Linguistics approach to the cross-linguistic analysis of cohesion.
The purpose of this study was to look at conjunctions in a descriptive text from a Senior High School textbook for the tenth grade. The English Textbook for Tenth Grade was employed as the research ...sample, and we chose SMA N 20 Medan English Textbook. This study employed two instruments: the first was a search for all the conjunction meanings, functions, and types, and the second was an analysis of the conjunctions used in the English textbook for Senior High School's Tenth Grade. The results of this study revealed that the most common types of conjunctions in English textbooks. The table shows that the Coordinating Conjunction is the most common type of conjunction in a descriptive text used in the English Textbook. The results revealed that the Coordinating Conjunctions are most prominent in the English Textbook for Senior High School's tenth grade. Which, the word “and” is most shown on the descriptive text of the English Textbook used in the tenth grade of senior high school.
The article first discusses whether the conjunction dok (?while?) belongs to
the category of coordinating or subordinating conjunctions. The analysis
demonstrates that this conjunction possesses some ...of the properties
characterizing the most typical coordinating conjunctions (i.e. it indicates
a contrast and the clauses can ?revolve around? it), some properties which
make it a marginal member of this category (i.e. it cannot coordinate
syntactic units other than independent clauses and the part of the second
clause which this clause shares with the first clause cannot be omitted
from the sentence), but that it also has a feature that the other
coordinating conjunctions do not exhibit and which would even place it
outside this category (i.e. it can also come before the first clause).
Nevertheless, the fact that its position in a sentence can vary without
changing the position of the clauses, that is to say, the position of the
clauses can change while that of the conjunction remains the same, clearly
indicates that this conjunction does not belong to either of them; hence, it
is not a subordinating conjunction. This can be inferred from some other
features as well - for instance, the predicate of the clause following this
conjunction - when referring to the future - can only be used in the Future
2 tense, and not the Future 1. It simultaneously has a strong tendency to
come between the two clauses, in which case it is preceded by a pause, i.e.
a comma. The conjunction dok thus shows that when it comes to two
contrasting categories, membership in one of them can depend not only on the
features which are typical of this particular category, but also on those
unacceptable to the other one. More generally, this conjunction additionally
shows that grammatical classifications, which are essentially based on
dichotomies, in some cases do not accurately reflect actual linguistic
phenomena. The second part of the article discusses how dok developed the
meaning of contrast. In relation to this, pseudo-subordinate temporal
dok-clauses are identified, in which dok still refers to simultaneity, but
the situation expressed in the dok-clause does not represent the reference
point relative to which the event in the main clause can be temporally
located; dok then means ?meanwhile?. The analysis suggests that the
separation of the two domains in which this conjunction can be interpreted
is pivotal to the development of the meaning of contrast - namely, the
temporal domain (when it is interpreted in its temporal sense, i.e.
indicating simultaneity) and the domain of comparison (when it is
interpreted as adversative). The aforementioned separation is possible in
ambiguous examples, where, in addition to the simultaneity of two
situations, there is also a contrast - either a contrast between these two
situations or between some of their components. It should also be added
that, if the conjunction has a temporal meaning, the possible element of
contrast is still present; but if its meaning is that of contrast, the
temporal component fades completely. Finally, the article provides a
possible explanation for why the conjunction dok in particular, unlike the
other temporal conjunctions, or other conjunctions for that matter, has
developed the potential to denote a contrast as well: it is when two events
occur simultaneously that the contrast between them is most noticeable -
they are ?before our eyes? at the same time.
The present research deals with the identification of standard of the type and number of cohesion devices used in (10-12 years old) children’s texts. The database includes 400 (10-12 years old) texts ...written by children in Tehran, 60 stories by child writers, and 60 texts in the fourth, fifth, and sixth grade course books. According to the findings, four types of conjunctive devices (additive, adversative, causal and temporal) are appeared in the texts written by 10-12 year-old children and the ones written for them (i.e., stories by child writers and texts in the course books). Furthermore, the comparison between the usage of conjunctive devices in both types of texts (i.e., productive and perceptive) showed that the standard of the type and number of cohesion devices indicate a kind of growth sequence in which additive devices appeared at first, followed by temporal devices, causal devices appearing next, and finally adversative devices are used. This process shows accumulative sequence of semantic growth; as a result, perception of coordination concept, sequence of occurrences, cause and effect relation, and contrast relation must have taken place for children. This finding is in line with that of Bloom et al. (1980), Kamari (2016), Shapiro and Hudson (1991) and Guna and Ngadiman (2015).
Xiang (2021) notes the following puzzle: plural wh-questions involving certain collective predicates are predicted to carry a uniqueness presupposition (Dayal 1996), yet intuitively they don’t (cf. ...Gentile & Schwarz 2020). She proposes that such questions have ‘higher-order readings’ (Spector 2007, 2008), and crucially that they have answers naming boolean conjunctions. I show that for the data she considers, recourse to higher-order question readings is mistaken: Xiang’s puzzle should be solved with higher-order plurality, and I provide empirical justification for this approach, mirroring for questions the recent findings for declaratives by Buccola, Kuhn & Nicolas (2021).
