Contrastive relational markers in women’s expository writing in nineteenth-century English

Main Article Content

Margarita Esther Sánchez Cuervo

Abstract

This study seeks to analyse the occurrence of contrastive relational markers in a corpus of recipes called Corpus of Women’s Instructive Texts in English, the 19th century sub-corpus (COWITE19). Opposition relations, also referred to as adversative or contrastive, are usually identified with markers such as “but”, “although”, and “however”. From a semantic point of view, a classification of these relations can be established into contrast, concession, and corrective, based on their linguistic evidence, lexical differences and syntactic behaviour (Izutsu, 2008). A further rhetorical function is antithesis, presented as a consistent device possessed of a verbal, analytical and persuasive nature (Fahnestock, 1999). The analysis of these markers is made following a computerised corpus analysis methodology and tries to discern which contrastive markers are mostly employed for the instructions conveyed by females. It also shows which opposition relation is predominant, whether contrastive, concessive, or corrective and, finally, it detects antithesis as an additional opposing meaning. In all cases, the possible argumentative role of these markers is highlighted as another step in the characterisation of women’s scientific writing.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Sánchez Cuervo, M. E. (2023). Contrastive relational markers in women’s expository writing in nineteenth-century English. Language Value, 16(1), 42–67. https://doi.org/10.6035/languagev.7228
Section
Articles

Funding data

References

Abraham, W. (1979). But. Studia Linguistica 33 (2), 89-119.
Alonso-Almeida, F., Álvarez-Gil, F. (2020). ‘So That It May Reach to The Jugular’. Modal Verbs in Early Modern English Recipes. Studia Neofilologiczne 16, 61-88.
Anscombre, J-C., Ducrot, O. (1977). Deux maise en français? Lingua 43, 23-40.
Azar, M. (1997). Concessive Relations as Argumentation. Text 17 (3), 301-316.
Biber, D. (1988). Variation Across Speech and Writing. Cambridge University Press.
Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Blackwell.
Blakemore, D. (1989). Denial and Contrast: a Relevance Theoretic Analysis of BUT. Linguistics and Philosophy 12, 15-37.
Crevels, M. (2000). Concessive on Different Semantic Levels: A Typological Perspective. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & B. Kortmann (Eds.), Cause. Condition. Concession. Contrast. Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives (313-339). Mouton de Gruyter.
Dacal, M., Katriel, T. (1977). Between Semantics and Pragmatics: The Two Types of ‘But’ – Hebrew ‘Aval’ and ‘Ela’. Theoretical Linguistics 4, 143-172.
Fahnestock, J. (1999). Rhetorical Figures in Science. Oxford University Press.
Fahnestock, J. (2011). Rhetorical Style. The Uses of Language in Persuasion. Oxford University Press.
Foolen, A. (1991). Polyfunctionality and the Semantics of Adversative Conjunctions. Multilingua 10 (1/2), 79-92.
Green, N. L. (2022). The Use of Antithesis and Other Contrastive Relations in Argumentation. Argument & Computation 14 (1), 1-16
Greenbaum, S., Quirk, R. (1990). A Student’s Grammar of the English Language. Longman.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Edward Arnold.
Kehler, A. (2002). Coherence, Reference, and the Theory of Grammar. CSLI Publications.
Lang, E. (1984). The Semantics of Coordination. John Benjamins.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar (Vol. 1). Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar (Vol. 2). Descriptive Application. Stanford University Press.
Lyons, J. (1971). Semantics (Vol. 2). Cambridge University Press.
Izutsu, M. N. (2008). Contrast, concessive and corrective: towards a comprehensive study of opposition relations. Journal of Pragmatics 40 (4), 646-675.
Martin, J. R. (1984). Language, Genre, and Register. In F. Christie. (Ed.). Children writing: A Reader (21-9). Deakin University Press.
Musi, E. (2018). ‘How Did You Change My View?’ A Corpus-Based Study of Concessions’ Argumentative Role. Discourse Studies 20 (2), 270-288.
Perelman, Ch., Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The New Rhetoric. A Treatise on Argumentation (J. Wilkinson and P. Weaver Trans.). University of Notre Dame Press.
Rudolph, E. (1996). Contrast: Adversative and Concessive Expressions on Sentence and Text Level. Walter de Gruyter.
Spooren, W. (1989). Some Aspects of the Form and Interpretation of Global Contrastive Coherence Relations. Ph.D. Dissertation, Nijmegen University.
Sweetser, E. E. (1990). From Etymology to Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.
Takahashi, H. (2008). Imperatives in Concessive clauses: Compatibility Between Constructions. Constructions 2, 1-39.
Thompson, S. A., Longacre, R. E., Hwang, S. J. J. (2007. Adverbial Clauses. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Volume II: Complex Constructions (237-269). Cambridge University Press.
von Klopp, A. (1994). BUT and Negation. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 17 (1), 1-34.
Winter, Y., Rimon, M. (1994). Contrast and Implication in Natural Language. Journal of Semantics 11, 365-406.