Epistemic Causality in Literary Discourse of M. Amis
https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2022-11-2-63-76
Abstract
Epistemic causal relations in the discourse of Martin Amis are studied on the example of complex statements with the connector because, which expresses the non-self-causal relationship between propositions. The relevance of the study is due to the importance of studying the logical and semantic essence of causality as a basic category of human thinking. The mechanism of causal argumentation is considered from the point of view of the cognitive interaction of cause-and-effect elements of discourse. Attention is paid to epistemic argumentative relations, which are a sequential unfolding of the thought process with the reverse / regressive conditionality of events, where the opinion-conclusion is followed by the argument from which this conclusion was formulated. A wide range of functional and semantic roles of the causal connector as an explicator of epistemic causality is described. The contextual analysis of microsituations with the connector because reveals a variety of logical connections between inversely related propositions, as well as in constructions close to paratactic ones. The specificity of the functional capabilities of the conjunction under study is described, which leads the authors to create a classification of epistemic causal relations with the causal conjunction because in English is described. Four epistemic functions of the connector because are identified: discursive-reflexive, expressive-epistemic, implicit-epistemic, and logical-discursive.
About the Authors
S. A. Petrenko
Pyatigorsk State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Svetlana A. Petrenko - PhD in Philology, Associate Professor, Department of Experimental Linguistics and Intercultural Competence.
Pyatigorsk.
A. Ph. Petrenko
Pyatigorsk State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Alexander Ph. Petrenko - PhD in Philology, Professor, Department of Literature and Pedagogical Technologies of Philological Education.
Pyatigorsk.
References
1. Amis, M. (1991). London Fields. London: Vintage. 470 p.
2. Amis, M. (1991). Success. London: Vintage. 224 p. ISBN 0099461854.
3. Amis, M. (1994). Other People. London: Vintage. 224 p.
4. Amis, M. (2003). The Rachel Papers. London: Vintage. 224 p. ISBN 0099466694.
5. Aganesov, V. S. (2009). Causal conjunctions of the English language as an object of research. Questions of Romano-Germanic and Russian philology, 1: 5—19. (In Russ.).
6. Aganesov, V. S. (2019). Structurally and semantically non-self-sufficient main sentences with a postpositive subordinate clause with the conjunctions because. In: University readings — 2019. Materials of scientific and methodological readings of PSU. 115—119. (In Russ.).
7. Altenberg, B. (1987). Causal ordering strategies in English conversation. In: Grammar in the construction of texts. London: Cambridge University Press. 50—64.
8. Bezrukova, O. G., Mikitenko, N. Y. (2012). Means of expressing causal and formal-logical relations in English and Russian. Bulletin of the Kalmyk University, 2 (14): 88—92. (In Russ.).
9. Dalbergenova, L. E., Zharkynbekova, Sh. K. (2013). Studies of causal relations in modern linguistics. Modern problems of science and education, 6: Available at: https://science-education.ru/ru/article/view?id=10878 (accessed 21.08.2021). (In Russ.).
10. Edeleva, I. V., Mustafina, A. R. (2019). Semantic analysis of cause-effect relationship in linguistics through the prism of philosophical scientific thought. Teacher of the XXI century, 2—2: 325—334. (In Russ.).
11. Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold. 384 p.
12. Helbig, G. (1979). Rezension: W. Koch. Kasus-Kognition-Kausalitat. Deutsch als Fremdsprache, 6: 370—375. (In Germ.).
13. Kamynina, L. I. (1992). The functional and semantic field of causality in modern English. Author’s abstract of PhD Diss. Moscow. 16 p. (In Russ.).
14. Kroll, B. (1977). Combining ideas in Written and Spoken English: A look at subordination and coordination. In: Discourse across time and space. Los Angeles. 69—108.
15. Kulikova, O. V. (2016). Causality as the basis of the representation of the event chain in argumentative discourse. Bulletin of the Moscow State Linguistic University. Humanities, 7 (746): 134—140. (In Russ.).
16. Kuzmin, Yu. A. (2020). To the question of the essence of cause and effect. Theology. Philosophy. Right, 1 (13): 34—43. (In Russ.).
17. König, E., Siemund, P. (2000). Causal and concessive clauses: Formal and semantic relations. In: Cause — Condition — Concession — Contrast. Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 341—360. DOI: 10.1515/9783110219043.4.341.
18. Lakoff, G., Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 256 p.
19. Lehmann, Ch., Haiman, J., Thompson, S. (1988). Towards a typology of clause linkage. In: Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia. 181—226. DOI: 10.1075/tsl.18.09leh.
20. Litkowski, K. C. (1998). Analysis of subordinating conjunctions. CL Research. Gaithersburg: MD. 21 p.
21. Lopukhina, R. V. (2015). The logical and semantic essence of the category of causality. Humanities Bulletin of the Tolstoy State Pedagogical University, 4 (16): 67—74. (In Russ.).
22. Lowe, I. (1987). Two ways of looking at causes and reasons. In: Grammar in the construction of texts. London: [b. i.]. 37—49.
23. Mercier, H. (2012). The power of well-connected arguments: Early sensitivity to the connective because. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/17023435/The_power_of_well_connected_arguments_Early_sensitivity_to_the_connective_because (accessed 21.09.2021).
24. Oversteegen, L. (2005). Causality and Tense — Two Temporal Structure Builders. Journal of Semantics, 22 (3): 307—337.
25. Petrenko, S. A. (2000). Comparative description of causal conjunctions of English and Russian languages. PhD Diss. Pyatigorsk. 195 p. (In Russ.).
26. Petrenko, S. A. (2002). Positional and semantic characteristics of the conjunctions because and the features of translating statements with it into Russian. Bulletin of Pyatigorsk State Linguistic University, 4: 42—46. (In Russ.).
27. Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 3—27.
28. Schleppegrell, M. J. (1991). Paratactic because. Journal of Pragmatics. Amsterdam, 16 (4): 323—337.
29. Steward, H. (2006). Understanding because. ProtoSociology, 23: 67—92. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/17048414/Understanding_Because (accessed 15.08.2021).
30. Sweetser, E. (1990). From Etymology to Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 174 p.
31. Teremova, R. M. (1984). Proper causal CS in the aspect of their functioning in the text. In: Complex sentence in the system of other syntactic categories. Leningrad: Leningrad Pedagogical Institute [LGPI] named after A. I. Herzen. 99—109. (In Russ.).
32. Teremova, R. M. (1989). Functions of causal constructions in the modern Russian language. Philological sciences, 3: 82—86. (In Russ.).
33. Thorne, J. P. (1986). “Because”. Linguistics across historical and geographical boundaries, 2: 1063—1066. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110856132.
34. Traugott, E. (1988). Pragmatic strengthening and grammaticalization. In: Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of Berkeley Linguistics Society. 406—416.
35. Vandepitte, S. (1988). Metapragmatic terms of the expression of propositional attitude: the case of the causal conjunctions. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 38 (1—4): 201—210.
36. Vsevolodova, M. V., Yashchenko, T. A. (2008). Causal relations in the modern Russian language. Moscow: URSS: LKI Publishing House. 207 p. ISBN 978-5-382-00612-3. (In Russ.).
Review
For citations:
Petrenko S.A., Petrenko A.P. Epistemic Causality in Literary Discourse of M. Amis. Nauchnyi dialog. 2022;11(2):63-76. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2022-11-2-63-76
Views:
386
Email this article 