2.2.4 In cognitive linguistics
Cognitive theorists analyze conjunctive devices from a dynamic perspective.In this section,the studies of Langacker(1991,2009),Verstraete(1998),Schilperoord & Verhagen(1998)and McGregor(1999)are especially representative.
Langacker(1991)uses the term connector to refer to the markers such as subordinators,conjunctions,and subordinating conjunctions,which indicate the nature of the interclausal connections.Based on their meanings,he(Langacker,1991)mainly distinguishes two broad types of the connectors:those could occur as being either clause-initial such as and,while,because,that and those which is attached to the verb such as-ing.
Verstraete(1998)discusses the causal conjunction because from the perspective of cognitive grammar.In order to realize two aims in his analysis,Verstraete(1998)firstly establishes the semiotic model of the conjunction because.By postulating that internal and external conjunctions are essentially cryptotypes which are anchored in the speaker-encoding and content-related grammar of their main clause,it is easy to explain why and how the reactances such as clefting,why-clause,the adding of affix and nominalization could work to distinguish internal and external conjunctions.
Figure 2.7 The grammar of internal and external conjunction(Verstraete,1998:188)
Just as Figure 2.7 illustrates,Verstraete(1998)adopts Langacker’s term grounding and instantiated type to explain internal and external conjunctions.The former is grammatically anchored in the grounding of the main clause,while the latter is grammatically anchored in the instantiated type of the main clause.Then he divides the internal conjunctions into speech act conjunctions and epistemic conjunctions.According to Verstraete(1998:201),speech act conjunctions constitutes a particular type of social relation between speaker and hearer;while epistemic conjunctions support an argumentative position the speaker has taken with regard to a particular proposition.
He(Verstraete,1998)finally concludes that the syntactic difference between the two types of internal conjunctions can be interpreted from both the epistemic end and the speech act end.In that case,epistemic conjunctions could change according to modal resources while the speech act conjunctions are not.
Based on the interpretation of Verstraete,McGregor(1999)mainly proposes a question that how many types of causal conjunctions could exhaust the division of interpersonal causal conjunction.Apart from illocutionary(speech act)modification and rhetorical(epistemic)modification,he adds a third type—attitudinal modification such as unfortunately in Example(27).
(20)Unfortunately John is waiting there,because someone has planted a bomb there.(McGregor,1999:144)
What is needed to be mentioned is that McGregor(1999)proposes that apart from causal conjunction,other kinds of conjunctions such concessive and conditional conjunctions could also express interpersonal meanings and is a worthy topic of investigation.
Schilperoord & Verhagen(1998:160)propose the concept conceptual dependence and mainly differentiate two kinds of conjunctions.On the one kind,dat(that)is semantically more“empty”than other subordinating conjunctions in that it represents the relational function.On the other hand,conjunctions like because,although denote a relation of certain kind such as causal and concessive as well as relational function.
At home,there are also some significant researches on conjunctive markers from the perspective of cognitive linguistics.For example,Xiang et al.(向平等,2009)attempt to study the temporal CM when in the light of the theories of metaphor and figure/ground in order to explore the inner mechanism underlying their syntactic structure and tries to find the implication for foreign language teaching.