Search

This paper addresses the lack of consensus within the field of discourse traditions (DTs) -and more precisely regarding the Coserian tripartition of language into universal, historical, and individual levels-which results from Peter Koch's understanding of DTs as entities meant to be embedded in the historical level, as opposed to that of Johannes Kabatek or Franz Lebsanft, according to whom they must be placed at the individual level. The specific aim sought is to show the criteria on which the scheme constructed by Coseriu relies by interweaving his tripartition of levels with the Aristotelian-Humboldtian one -in turn structured around the concepts of energeia, dynamis and ergon. The article thus reveals that the extent to which Koch's position differs from Coseriu's original proposal -to which Kabatek and Lebsanft remain faithful-can be explained in terms of how the opposition between the subject and the object of study and the ontology of the former is conceived in each case. Added to the above, this article likewise highlights the close link tying epistemology to ontology which becomes evident when closely examining the foundations that underpin the well-known Coserian tripartition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, we aim at proving that a certain discourse tradition, regarding the usage of expressive phraseologisms in prose, does not function properly when it comes to Liviu Rebreanu's two novels, namely Ion and Răscoala. Usually, as Cristinel Munteanu previously demonstrated, in the literary texts authored by writers such as Duiliu Zamfirescu, Mihail Sadoveanu, Fănuș Neagu etc., as a rule, one can identify the most expressive idioms and set phrases at the dialogued level, and not at the narrative level. It seems that in Liviu Rebreanu's case this discourse tradition functions the other way round. Our study, based on a comprehensive analysis of both aforementioned novels, will confirm such a hypothesis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper analyzes uses, functions, and literary distribution of the negative politeness formula si placet '(lit.) if it pleases (you)' in a corpus of Late Latin texts (third–sixth century CE). Drawing on both qualitative and quantitative observations, it is suggested that the pragmatic enrichment undergone by this conditional parenthetical clause is due to a conspiracy of factors, namely a process of semantic and pragmatic change fostered by a "politeness-induced invited inference" (Beeching 2005), which was triggered by a general process of literary imitation within the very specific discourse tradition of philosophical dialogues. The analysis shows, indeed, that si placet is very rarely used in the history of Latin and it is circumscribed to this specific literary genre. This suggests that this politeness formula developed as a genre-specific stylistic feature and as such it was replicated over centuries through the circulation of textual models and the propagation of genre-related practices, as a valuable linguistic device to render the idea of an urbane conversation among educated peers and, ultimately, as a marker of socio-cultural identity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

These lines present some results obtained by testing the hypothesis that suggests the possibility of identifying symptoms of a Discourse Tradition -understood as any historically determined mold for communication in a language with its own historicityin a text through the relative frequency of the junction schemes -elements that connect the propositions in a discourse- that appear in a text. A corpus of 200 Twitter messages was collected, from four accounts corresponding to different spheres of human activity -institutional, commercial, informative and personal-, then an analysis is made in order to find the junction schemes present in the messages, as well as the elements out of linguistic scope, but strongly linked to it. From this, some statistical data is analyzed qualitatively, describing some conservative elements of Discourse Traditions in different spheres, such as the omission of arguments and the use of direct discourse in the informative sphere, or the diary in the personal sphere. With this analysis, the four spheres can be classified into two groups, following the notion of emission frameworks by Goffman (1981). The conservative elements together with the innovators, allow to postulate the plausibility of a Discourse Tradition born on Twitter. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]