A corpus-based research into conventionally indirect requests with tud ’can/know’ in Hungarian Magyar közvetett kérések vizsgálata korpuszpragmatikai megközelítésben
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Over the last few decades, the use of corpus data has become a basic principle of disciplines of language use, which led to the birth of corpus pragmatics (Jucker 2013; Aijmer–Rühlemann 2015; Rühlemann–Aijmer 2015). Although traditional pragmatics research methods are still indispensable in research into implicit pragmatic phenomena, their combination with corpus method has proved to be fruitful. The present paper provides a case study on some structures with the Hungarian verb tud ’can/know’ that are conventionally used to perform indirect requests, and it discusses some related methodological issues as well. Relying on the analysis of occurrences in the Hungarian Gigaword Corpus, it reveals Hungarian requests strategies that have not been discussed in earlier literature based on other data sources. In addition to typical interrogative and infinitival forms mentioned in previous studies, the present paper discusses additional – non-interrogative and non-infinitival – varieties of directive structures with tud ’can/know’ in Hungarian.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
Ädel, Annelie – Randi Reppen 2008. The challenges of different settings: An overview. In Annelie Ädel – Randi Reppen (szerk.) Corpora and Discourse. The Challenges of Different Settings. (Studies in Corpus Linguistics 31) Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 1–6. doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.31.01ade
Aijmer, Karin 2018. Corpus pragmatics: From form to function. In Andreas H. Jucker – Klaus P. Schneider – Wolfram Bublitz (szerk.) Methods in Pragmatics. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 555–586. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110424928-022
Aijmer, Karin – Christoph Rühlemann (szerk.) 2015. Corpus Pragmatics. A Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Austin, John Langshaw 1962. How to Do Things With Words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana 1989. Playing it safe: The Role of conventionality in indirectness. In Shoshana Blum-Kulka – Juliane House – Gabriele Kasper (szerk.) Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation. 37–70.
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana – Juliane House – Gabriele Kasper (szerk.) 1989. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana – Elite Olshtain 1984. Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics 5/3:196–213. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/5.3.196
Deutschmann, Mats 2003. Apologising in British English. (Skrifter Från Moderna Språk 10) Umeå: Umeå University.
Dijk, Teun A. van 1977. Pragmatic macro-structures in discourse and cognition. In Marc de Mey – Rik Pinxten – M. Poriau – Fernand Vandamme (szerk.) International Workshop on The Cognitive Viewpoint. Ghent: University of Ghent. 99–113.
Grice, H. Paul 1975. Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole – Jerry L. Morgan (szerk.) Syntax and Semantics Vol. 3. Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press. 41–58.
Jacobs, Andreas – Andreas H. Jucker 1995. The historical perspective in pragmatics. In Andreas H. Jucker (szerk.) Historical Pragmatics. Pragmatic Developments in the History of English. (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 35) Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 3–33. doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.35.04jac
Jucker, Andreas H. 1994. The feasibility of historical pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics 22/5:533–536. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90083-3
Jucker, Andreas H. 2013. Corpus pragmatics. In Jan-Ola Östman – Jef Verschueren (szerk.) Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 2–17.
Jucker, Andreas H. 2018. Data in pragmatic research. In Andreas H. Jucker – Klaus Peter Schneider – Wolfram Bublitz (szerk.) Methods in Pragmatics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 3–36.
Kertész, András – Csilla Rákosi 2012. Data and Evidence in Linguistics a Plausible Argumentation Model. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Krékits József 2006. Felszólító performatív beszédaktusok. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
Lutzky, Ursula – Andrew Kehoe 2017. “I apologise for my poor blogging”: Searching for apologies in the Birmingham Blog Corpus. Corpus Pragmatics 1/1:37–56. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41701-017-0004-0
McAllister, Paula Garcia 2015. Speech acts: A synchronic perspective. In Karin Aijmer – Christoph Rühlemann (szerk.) Corpus Pragmatics. A Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 29–51. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139057493.003
Meyer, Charles F. 2002. English Corpus Linguistics: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nagy C. Katalin 2013. Adatforrások integrációja a történeti nyelvészetben: A nyelvtörténeti korpuszadat fogalmáról. Argumentum/9:56–78.
Nagy C., Katalin (kézirat). Corpus Data in Pragmatics: Conventionally Indirect Directives with tud ‘can/know’ in Hungarian.
Nagy C. Katalin – Németh Zsuzsanna – Németh T. Enikő 2019. Adatok és adatforrások integrációja a pragmatikai kutatásban. Jelentés és Nyelvhasználat 6/2:109–130. doi: https://doi.org/10.14232/jeny.2019.2.9
Németh T. Enikő – Nagy C. Katalin – Németh Zsuzsanna 2020. Ami a korpuszokból kimarad: rejtőzködő pragmatikai jelenségek. In Simon Gábor – Tolcsvai Nagy Gábor (szerk.) Nyelvtan, diskurzus, megismerés. Budapest: ELTE Eötvös Kiadó. 333–356.
O’Keeffe, Anne 2018. Corpus-based function-to-form approaches. In Andreas H. Jucker – Klaus Peter Schneider – Wolfram Bublitz (szerk.) Methods in Pragmatics. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 587–618.
Oravecz, Csaba – Tamás Váradi – Bálint Sass 2014. The Hungarian Gigaword Corpus. In Nicoletta Calzolari – Khalid Choukri – Thierry Declerck – Hrafn Loftsson – Bente Maegaard – Joseph Mariani – Asuncion Moreno – Jan Odijk – Stelios Piperidis (szerk.) Proceedings of the ninth international conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC-2014). Reykjavik: European Language Resources Association (ELRA). 1719–1723.
Rühlemann, Christoph – Karin Aijmer 2015. Introduction. Corpus pragmatics: laying the foundations. In Karin Aijmer – Christoph Rühlemann (szerk.) Corpus Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1–26. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139057493.001
Sass Bálint 2007. Jóízű Mazsolázás a korpuszból. Előadás. XVII. MANYE kongresszus. Siófok. 2007. április 19–21.
Schauer, Gila A. – Svenja Adolphs 2006. Expressions of gratitude in corpus and DCT data: Vocabulary, formulaic sequences, and pedagogy. System 34/1:119–134. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2005.09.003
Searle, John R. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, John R. 1975. Indirect speech acts. In Peter Cole – Jerry L. Morgan (szerk.) Syntax and Semantics Vol. 3. Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press. 59–82.
Searle, John R. 1991 [1975]. Közvetett beszédaktusok. In Pléh Csaba – Síklaki István – Terestyéni Tamás (szerk.) Nyelv, kommunikáció, cselekvés I. Budapest: Tankönyvkiadó. 53–76.
Simon Gábor 2018. Az igei jelentés metaforizációjának mintázatai. Nyelvtan- és korpuszvezérelt esettanulmányok. Jelentés és Nyelvhasználat 5/1:1–36. doi: https://doi.org/10.14232/jeny.2018.1.1
Szili Katalin 2002. A kérés pragmatikája a magyar nyelvben. Magyar Nyelvőr 126:12–30.
Taavitsainen, Irma – Andreas H. Jucker 2015. Twenty years of historical pragmatics: Origins, developments and changing thought styles. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 16/1:1–24. doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.16.1.01taa
Tognini-Bonelli, Elena 2001. Corpus Linguistics at Work. (Studies in Corpus Linguistics 6) Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Váradi, Tamás 2002. The Hungarian National Corpus. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation. Las Palmas. 385–389.