3784497889

Aneks 1 - informacje dot. zasad zapisu danych bibliograficznych dla studentów filologii angielskiej

Panther, Klaus-Uwe and Linda Thornburg. 1998. “A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation”. Journal of Pragmatics 30,755-769.

Inne przykłady:

Ten sam autor (autorzy), różne publikacje:

Panther, Klaus-Uwe and Linda Thornburg. 1998. “A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation”. Journal of Pragmatics 30, 755-769.

---------------- 1999. “The potentiality for actuality metonymy in English and Hungarian”. In

Panther, Klaus-Uwe and Gunter Radden (eds.). Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 333-357.

----------------- 2000. “The EFFECT FOR CAUSE metonymy in English grammar”. In

Barcelona, Antonio (ed.). Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 215-231.

W przypadku dwóch publikacji z tego samego roku:

Yule, George. 1996a. Pragmatics. (Oxford Introductions to Language Study. Series Editor: H.G. Widdowson). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

-------------- 1996b. The Study of Language (2"^d ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press (l^sted. 1985).

Cytaty, parafrazy, przypisy:

The mechanism of recognizing the illocutionary force of indirect speech acts has fascinated linguists ever sińce the phenomenon became an object of systematic study after Austin (1962) presented his revolutionary approach to linguistic communication and introduced the idea of speech as action. One of the explanations offered by pragmaticists is that, in the correct recognition of the hidden meaning, when, for example, an apparent ąuestion is treated as a request, the hearer is guided by the literał meaning of an utterance which contains important clues (cf. Searle 1975: 60, 72). For example, the often quoted utterance “Can you pass the salt?” is recognized as a directive speech act¹ because it is a literał question about one of the felicity conditions on the act of requesting.

Recent research in cognitive linguistics has confirmed the view that metonymy is one of the most fundamental cognitive mechanisms, or, in Lakoff s formulation: “one of the basie characteristics of cognition” (1987: 77), “morę basie, perhaps, even than metaphor” (Taylor 1995: 124). It underlies all kinds of linguistic phenomena, as, for example, meaning extension, as well as processes which do not find immediate expression in language. Metonymic thinking plays an important function in relating to every-day situations, text processing, the interpretation of speech acts and conversational implicature (cf. Gibbs 1999).

Langacker’s idea of metonymy as a reference point phenomenon served as a basis of Kovecses and Radden’s (1998: 39) working defmition:

1

According to Searle (1975: 61, 1976: 11), the class of ‘directive’ illocutionary acts includes, alongside ordering and requesting, commanding, pleading, begging, praying, entreating, instructing, forbidding, inviting, permitting and advising.