Zašto Modrić i Real prije nego Real i Modrić? O redoslijedu vlastitih imena u koordiniranim konstrukcijama (original) (raw)

Abstract

The order of the constituents within a coordinated NP construction is in theory open, i.e. either constituent can occupy either the initial or the final position. When it comes to specific realizations of the coordinate constructional template, the choice of the initial constituent need not be random at all. It is wellknown that in some phraseological units, i.e. in the so-called irreversible binomials, their order is as a rule quite fixed (e.g. duša i tijelo 'body and soul,' kruh i sol 'bread and salt,' život i smrt 'life and death,' iće i piće 'drinks and food,' muž i žena 'husband and wife') and seems to be dictated by a number of cognitive factors, among which iconic principles play an important role. Apart from such conventionalized phraseological pairs, the relative order of constituents seems to be guided by the speaker's communicative intentions, and therefore in principle be quite flexible. However, it appears that in cases of coordination of proper nouns denoting parts and wholes there is a clear preference for the construction in which the part precedes the whole (Osijek i Slavonija rather than Slavonija i Osijek, Modrić i Real rather than Real i Modrić, etc.). The differences between their distributions on the one hand, and the distributions found with comparable inanimate nouns and animate common nouns in coordination on the other, are explained in terms of the reference point construction (Langacker 1993). The proper noun denoting a person functions as a cognitive reference point facilitating the resolution of indeter-378 Mario Brdar: Why Modrić and Real rather than Real and Modrić? On the order of proper names under coordination minacy due to the fact that the second proper noun in coordination can have more than one metonymically related sense. Such coordinated constructions are shown to be functionally similar to associative plurals as they are also a means of referring to heterogeneous collectives that have a prominent, focal member.

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (21)

  1. Behaghel, Otto. 1923-1932. Deutsche Syntax: Eine geschichtliche Darstellung. Heidel- berg. Carl Winter.
  2. Benor, Sarah B. & Levy, Roger. 2006. The chicken or the egg? A probabilistic analysis of English binomials. Language 82. 233-278.
  3. Brdar, Mario & Brdar Szabó, Rita. 2013. Kik lehettek és kik lehetnek Kazinczyék vagy Karinthyék? A tulajdonnévi asszociatív többes -ék szerkezet értelmezésének útjai. In Kugler, Nóra & Laczkó, Krisztina & Tátrai, Szilárd (eds.), A megismerés és az értelmezés konstrukciói: Tanulmányok Tolcsvai Nagy Gábor tiszteletére, 204-223. Budapest: Tinta Könyvkiadó.
  4. Brdar, Mario & Brdar Szabó, Rita & Kugler, Nóra. 2016. A többség -ék jeles kifejezésének nyelvváltozási folyamata. In Balazs, Géza, & Veszelszki, Ágnes (eds.), Generációk nyelve, 319-331. Budapest: Inter, Magyar Szemiotikai Társaság, ELTE Mai Magyar Mario Brdar: Why Modrić and Real rather than Real and Modrić? On the order of proper names under coordination Nyelvi Tanszék.
  5. Brdar Szabó, Rita & Brdar, Mario & Kugler, Nóra. 2015. Hungarian morphological constructions in -ék between homogeneous and heterogeneous construal. Paper pre- sented at the 13 th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, 20-25 July 2015, Newcastle upon Tyne.
  6. Cooper, William E. & Ross, John R. 1975. World order. In Grossman, Robin E. & San L. James & Vance, Timothy J. (eds.), Papers from the parasession on functionalism, 63-111. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago.
  7. Croft, William. 1993. The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics 4. 335-370.
  8. Fenk-Oczlon, Gertraud. 1989. Word frequency and word order in freezes. Linguistics 27. 517-556.
  9. Gibbs, Ray W. J. 1999. Speaking and thinking with metonymy. In Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Günter Radden (eds.), Metonymy in language and thought, 61-76. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  10. Langacker, Ronald W. 1993. Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 4. 1-38.
  11. Langacker, Ronald W. 1999. Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin & New York: Mou- ton de Gruyter.
  12. Lohmann, Arne (2014). English coordinate constructions: A processing perspective on constituent order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  13. Lüdeling, Anke & Evert, Stefan & Baroni, Marco. 2006. Using Web data for linguistic purpose. In Hundt, Marianne & Nesselhauf, Nadja & Biewer, Carolin (eds.), Corpus Linguistics and the Web, 7-24. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
  14. Mairal, Ricardo, & Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco J. 2009. Levels of description and expla- nation in meaning construction. In Butler, Chris, & Martín Arista, Javier (eds.), De- constructing constructions, 153-198. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  15. Maldonado, Ricardo. 2002. Objective and subjective datives. Cognitive Linguistics 13(1). 1-65.
  16. Malkiel, Yakov. 1959. Studies in irreversible binomials. Lingua 8. 113-160.
  17. Mauri, Caterina. 2014. What do connectives and plurals have in common? The linguistic expression of ad hoc categories. In Blochowiak, Joanna & Durrlemann-Tame, Sté- phanie & Grisot, Cristina & C. Laenzlinger, Christopher (eds.), Linguistic papers dedicated to Jacques Moeschler, 1-21. Genève: University of Geneva Publication.
  18. Moravcsik, Edit. 2003. A semantic analysis of associative plurals. Studies in Language 27(3). 469-503.
  19. Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco J., & Galera Masegosa, Alicia. 2014. Cognitive modeling: A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  20. Van Hoek, Karen. 1997. Anaphora and conceptual structure. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press. 17.1-2 (2016): 377-395
  21. Willemse, Peter. 2006. Esphoric the N of a(n) N-nominals: Forward bridging to an indefi- nite reference point. Folia Linguistica 40. 319-364.