Discourse relational devices of contrast in Lithuanian and English

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

When conjunctions are employed to link sentences, they become discourse relational devices The purpose of this study is to analyse if the semantic meaning of Lithuanian contrastive conjunctions o (but/when/whereas/ while) and bet (but) coincides with the pragmatic meaning and to draw some parallels with their English counterparts. A corpus-based approach is employed to make generalizations on the use of Lithuanian conjunctions and their English counterparts, whereas discourse analysis provides a theoretical framework to analyse the conjunctions in spoken language and distinguish their peculiarities typical of this social context. The research reveals that Lithuanian conjunction bet and its English counterpart but demonstrate similar pragmatic behavior. On pragmatic level both conjunctions bet and but serve to object indirectly, to deny interlocutor’s ideas by first agreeing to them and then contradicting. Lithuanian conjunction o does not have a direct English counterpart. Lithuanian conjunction o, mainly contrastive in its semantic meaning, has manifold pragmatic meanings, therefore, it can be translated to English not only by but and and but also by any other English utterance introducer depending on the context. The focus of the research is spoken discourse which naturally implies certain limitations as it is not so much organized and more open to the recipient’s intervention. Knowledge of semantic meaning and pragmatic functions provides easily identifiable advice on how conjunctions could be used and translated. The object of the research is comparatively new in Lithuania and adds to the research field related to discourse relations studies.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)92-100
JournalSantalka = Coactivity: Filologija. Edukologija
Volume23
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015

Fingerprint

pragmatics
discourse
semantics
Lithuania
spoken language
field research
discourse analysis
recipient

Keywords

  • Discourse relational devices
  • Conjunctions
  • Corpus-based analysis
  • Semantic function
  • Pragmatic function
  • Spoken discourse

Cite this

@article{3d22a8a1168b43b781283b1a6e4fa426,
title = "Discourse relational devices of contrast in Lithuanian and English",
abstract = "When conjunctions are employed to link sentences, they become discourse relational devices The purpose of this study is to analyse if the semantic meaning of Lithuanian contrastive conjunctions o (but/when/whereas/ while) and bet (but) coincides with the pragmatic meaning and to draw some parallels with their English counterparts. A corpus-based approach is employed to make generalizations on the use of Lithuanian conjunctions and their English counterparts, whereas discourse analysis provides a theoretical framework to analyse the conjunctions in spoken language and distinguish their peculiarities typical of this social context. The research reveals that Lithuanian conjunction bet and its English counterpart but demonstrate similar pragmatic behavior. On pragmatic level both conjunctions bet and but serve to object indirectly, to deny interlocutor’s ideas by first agreeing to them and then contradicting. Lithuanian conjunction o does not have a direct English counterpart. Lithuanian conjunction o, mainly contrastive in its semantic meaning, has manifold pragmatic meanings, therefore, it can be translated to English not only by but and and but also by any other English utterance introducer depending on the context. The focus of the research is spoken discourse which naturally implies certain limitations as it is not so much organized and more open to the recipient’s intervention. Knowledge of semantic meaning and pragmatic functions provides easily identifiable advice on how conjunctions could be used and translated. The object of the research is comparatively new in Lithuania and adds to the research field related to discourse relations studies.",
keywords = "Discourse relational devices, Conjunctions, Corpus-based analysis, Semantic function, Pragmatic function, Spoken discourse",
author = "Jolita Šliogerienė and {Valūnaitė Oleškevičienė}, Giedrė and Vilma Asijavičiūtė",
year = "2015",
doi = "10.3846/cpe.2015.273",
language = "English",
volume = "23",
pages = "92--100",
journal = "Santalka = Coactivity: Filologija. Edukologija",
issn = "1822-430X",
publisher = "Technika",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Discourse relational devices of contrast in Lithuanian and English

AU - Šliogerienė , Jolita

AU - Valūnaitė Oleškevičienė, Giedrė

AU - Asijavičiūtė, Vilma

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - When conjunctions are employed to link sentences, they become discourse relational devices The purpose of this study is to analyse if the semantic meaning of Lithuanian contrastive conjunctions o (but/when/whereas/ while) and bet (but) coincides with the pragmatic meaning and to draw some parallels with their English counterparts. A corpus-based approach is employed to make generalizations on the use of Lithuanian conjunctions and their English counterparts, whereas discourse analysis provides a theoretical framework to analyse the conjunctions in spoken language and distinguish their peculiarities typical of this social context. The research reveals that Lithuanian conjunction bet and its English counterpart but demonstrate similar pragmatic behavior. On pragmatic level both conjunctions bet and but serve to object indirectly, to deny interlocutor’s ideas by first agreeing to them and then contradicting. Lithuanian conjunction o does not have a direct English counterpart. Lithuanian conjunction o, mainly contrastive in its semantic meaning, has manifold pragmatic meanings, therefore, it can be translated to English not only by but and and but also by any other English utterance introducer depending on the context. The focus of the research is spoken discourse which naturally implies certain limitations as it is not so much organized and more open to the recipient’s intervention. Knowledge of semantic meaning and pragmatic functions provides easily identifiable advice on how conjunctions could be used and translated. The object of the research is comparatively new in Lithuania and adds to the research field related to discourse relations studies.

AB - When conjunctions are employed to link sentences, they become discourse relational devices The purpose of this study is to analyse if the semantic meaning of Lithuanian contrastive conjunctions o (but/when/whereas/ while) and bet (but) coincides with the pragmatic meaning and to draw some parallels with their English counterparts. A corpus-based approach is employed to make generalizations on the use of Lithuanian conjunctions and their English counterparts, whereas discourse analysis provides a theoretical framework to analyse the conjunctions in spoken language and distinguish their peculiarities typical of this social context. The research reveals that Lithuanian conjunction bet and its English counterpart but demonstrate similar pragmatic behavior. On pragmatic level both conjunctions bet and but serve to object indirectly, to deny interlocutor’s ideas by first agreeing to them and then contradicting. Lithuanian conjunction o does not have a direct English counterpart. Lithuanian conjunction o, mainly contrastive in its semantic meaning, has manifold pragmatic meanings, therefore, it can be translated to English not only by but and and but also by any other English utterance introducer depending on the context. The focus of the research is spoken discourse which naturally implies certain limitations as it is not so much organized and more open to the recipient’s intervention. Knowledge of semantic meaning and pragmatic functions provides easily identifiable advice on how conjunctions could be used and translated. The object of the research is comparatively new in Lithuania and adds to the research field related to discourse relations studies.

KW - Discourse relational devices

KW - Conjunctions

KW - Corpus-based analysis

KW - Semantic function

KW - Pragmatic function

KW - Spoken discourse

U2 - 10.3846/cpe.2015.273

DO - 10.3846/cpe.2015.273

M3 - Article

VL - 23

SP - 92

EP - 100

JO - Santalka = Coactivity: Filologija. Edukologija

JF - Santalka = Coactivity: Filologija. Edukologija

SN - 1822-430X

IS - 2

ER -