Cover not available
Part of
Pragmatics and Literature
Edited by Siobhan Chapman and Billy Clark
[Linguistic Approaches to Literature 35] 2019
► pp. 115–137

Chapter 6
Lexical pragmatics in the context of structural parallelism

Article outline
  • 6.1Introduction
  • 6.2Syntactic parallelism
  • 6.3Lexical adjustment
  • 6.4Syntactic parallelism feeds “what is said”
  • 6.5Theoretical implications
  • 6.6Summary
  • References
  • Appendix
  • Notes
Published online: 5 December 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lal.35.06cai
References (56)
References
Allen, G. W. (1933). Biblical analogies for Walt Whitman’s prosody. Revue Anglo-Americaine X, 490–507.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. (1987). The instability of graded structure: implications for the nature of concepts. In Neisser, U. (Ed.) Concepts and conceptual development: ecological and intellectual factors in categorization, pp. 101–140, Cambridge: CUPGoogle Scholar
(1993). Flexibility, structure, and linguistic vagary in concepts: manifestations of a compositional system of perceptual symbols. In Collins A., Gathercole S., Conway A. & Morris, P. (Eds.) Theories of memorypp. 29–101. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Bradford, R. (1994). Roman Jakobson: life, language and art. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Carston, R. (1997). Enrichment and loosening: complementary processes in deriving the proposition expressed? Linguistische Berichte 8, 103–127.Google Scholar
(2002). Thoughts and utterances: the pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Explicit communication and “free pragmatic enrichment”. In Soria & Romero (Eds.), (pp. 217–285). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2000). New horizons in the study of language and mind. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002). On nature and language. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. & McGilray, J. (2012). The science of language. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, B. (2013). Relevance theory. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Relevance theory and language change. Lingua 175/176, 139–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Douthwaite, J. (2000). Towards a linguistic theory of foregrounding. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.Google Scholar
Fabb, N. (2010). Is literary language a development of ordinary language? Lingua 120(5), 1219–1232.Google Scholar
(2012). Poetic form as meaning in Walt Whitman’s Leaves of Grass. Journal of Literary Semantics 41(2), 105–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fish, S. (1980). Is there a text in this class? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. (1983). The modularity of mind: An essay on faculty psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fowler, R. (1986). Linguistic criticism. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Freeman, D. C. (Ed.). (1970). Linguistics and literary style. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
(Ed.). (1981). Essays in modern stylistics. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Furlong, A. (1996). Relevance theory and literary interpretation. PhD. Thesis. University College London.Google Scholar
Garrett, M. (1967). Syntactic structures and judgments of auditory events. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Glucksberg, S., Manfred, D. & McGlone, M. S. (1997). Metaphor comprehension: how metaphors create new categories. In Ward, T., Smith, S. & Vaid, J. (Eds.) Creative thought: an investigation of conceptual structures and processespp. 327–350. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. Reprinted in Grice (1989), (pp. 1–144).Google Scholar
(1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hickey, L. (2014). The pragmatics of style. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1960). Closing statement. In Sebeok T. (Ed.), Style in language, pp. 350–377. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1968). Poetry of grammar and grammar of poetry. Lingua 21, 597–609, reprinted in Rudy S. (Ed.) (1981) Roman Jakobson selected writings vol. III, pp. 87–97, The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1973). The role of linguistics in a theory of poetry. Daedalus 102, 231–244, reprinted in Freeman (Ed.). (1981), (pp. 9–23).Google Scholar
Louw, B. (2007). Collocation as the determinant of verbal art. In Miller D. & Turci M. (Eds.) Language and verbal art revisited: linguistic approaches to the study of literature, 149–180, London: EquinoxGoogle Scholar
Leech, G. (1965). “This bread I break” – language and interpretation. A Review of English Literature VI: 66–75, reprinted in Freeman (Ed.) (1970), (pp. 119–128).Google Scholar
(1969). A linguistic guide to English poetry. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Leech, G. & Short, M. (2007). Style in fiction: a linguistic introduction to English fictional prose. 2nd edition. Harlow: Pearson Longman.Google Scholar
Magee, B. (1997). The philosophy of Schopenhauer. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mukařovský, J. (1932). Standard language and poetic language. In Freeman (Ed.). (1970), (pp. 40–56).Google Scholar
Nicolle, S. (2011). Pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. In Narrog H. & Heine B. (Eds.) The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, pp. 401–412, Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Oxford English Dictionary (2017). [URL]
Ogden, C. K. & Richards, I. A. (1923). The meaning of meaning: a study of the influence of language upon thought and of the science of symbolism. London: K. Paul, Trench & Trubner.Google Scholar
Ohmann, R. (1964). Generative grammars and the concept of style. Word 20, 424–439. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peer, W. van (1986). Stylistics and psychology: investigations in foregrounding. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Recanati, F. (1993). Direct reference: from language to thought. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
(2004). Literal meaning. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Riffaterre, Michael (1972). Describing poetic structure: Two approaches to Baudelaire’s “les chats”. In Babb, H.S. (Ed.) Essays in stylistic analyses, pp. 362–392, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Shakespeare, W. (1599). The tragedie of Julius Caesar, published (1623) Mr. William Shakespeare’s comedies, histories, & tragedies (“The First Folio”). London: Edward Blount, William and Isaac Jarrard. Facsimile available at [URL]Google Scholar
Short, M. (1973). Some thoughts on foregrounding and interpretation. Language and Style 6, 97–108.Google Scholar
Soria, B. & Romero, E. (Eds.). (2010). Explicit communication: Robyn Carston’s pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: communication and cognition. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
(1998). The mapping between the mental and the public lexicon. In Carruthers P. & Boucher J. (Eds) Language and thought, pp. 184–200). Reprinted in Wilson D. & Sperber D. (2012).Meaning and Relevance, pp.31–46, Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stockwell, P. (2009). Texture: a cognitive aesthetics of reading. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Thomas, D. (2014). The collected poems of Dylan Thomas. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.Google Scholar
Trask, R. L. (1993). A dictionary of grammatical terms in Linguistics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Vickers, B. (1968). The artistry of Shakespeare’s prose. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Warren, J. P. (1990). Walt Whitman’s language experiment. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. & Carston, R. (2007). A unitary approach to lexical pragmatics: relevance, inference and ad hoc concepts. In Burton-Roberts, N. (Ed.) Pragmatics, pp. 230–259, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Whitman, W. (1855). Leaves of grass. [URL]Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Statham, Simon
2020. The year’s work in stylistics 2019. Language and Literature: International Journal of Stylistics 29:4 ► pp. 454 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.