Abstract Lexical ambiguity in the English language is abundant. Word-class ambiguity is even inherently tied to the productive process of conversion. Most lexemes are rather flexible when it comes to word class, which is facilitated by the minimal morphology that English has preserved. This study takes a multivariate quantitative approach to examine potential patterns that arise in a lexicon where verb-noun and noun-verb conversion are pervasive. The distributions of three inflectional suffixes, verbal -s, nominal -s, and -ed are explored for their interaction with degrees of verb-noun conversion. In order to achieve that, the lexical dispersion, context-dependency, and lexical similarity between the inflected and bare forms were taken into consideration and controlled for in a Generalized Additive Models for Location, Scale and Shape (GAMLSS; Stasinopoulos, M. D., R. A. Rigby, and F. De Bastiani. 2018. “GAMLSS: A Distributional Regression Approach.” Statistical Modelling 18 (3–4): 248–73). The results of a series of zero-one-inflated beta models suggest that there is a clear “uncanny” valley of lexemes that show similar proportions of verbal and nominal uses. Such lexemes have a lower proportion of inflectional uses when textual dispersion and context-dependency are controlled for. Furthermore, as soon as there is some degree of conversion, the probability that a lexeme is always encountered without inflection sharply rises. Disambiguation by means of inflection is unlikely to play a uniform role depending on the inflectional distribution of a lexeme.
摘要英语词汇歧义现象十分普遍。词类歧义甚至与转换的产生过程内在地联系在一起。当涉及到词类时，大多数词汇都相当灵活，这得益于英语保留的最小词法。本研究采用多变量定量方法来研究在动词-名词和名-动词转换普遍存在的词典中出现的潜在模式。研究了动词性词缀-s、词性词缀-s和词性词缀-ed的分布与动名词转换程度的相互作用。为了实现这一目标，在一个广义的位置、尺度和形状加性模型(GAMLSS)中，考虑并控制了屈折形式和裸形式之间的词汇分散、上下文依赖性和词汇相似性。Stasinopoulos, m.d, R. A. Rigby和F. De Bastiani. 2018。GAMLSS:一种分布回归方法。统计建模18(3-4):248-73)。一系列0 - 1膨胀的beta模型的结果表明，存在一个明显的“恐怖”词素谷，这些词素显示出言语和名义用途的相似比例。在控制了语篇分散和语境依赖的情况下，这类词汇的屈折变化使用比例较低。此外，一旦存在某种程度的转换，一个词素总是没有屈折地遇到的可能性就会急剧上升。根据词素的屈折分布，用屈折来消除歧义的方法不可能发挥统一的作用。
{"title":"Exploring the Effect of Conversion on the Distribution of Inflectional Suffixes: A Multivariate Corpus Study","authors":"Alexander Rauhut","doi":"10.1515/zaa-2021-2024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2021-2024","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Lexical ambiguity in the English language is abundant. Word-class ambiguity is even inherently tied to the productive process of conversion. Most lexemes are rather flexible when it comes to word class, which is facilitated by the minimal morphology that English has preserved. This study takes a multivariate quantitative approach to examine potential patterns that arise in a lexicon where verb-noun and noun-verb conversion are pervasive. The distributions of three inflectional suffixes, verbal -s, nominal -s, and -ed are explored for their interaction with degrees of verb-noun conversion. In order to achieve that, the lexical dispersion, context-dependency, and lexical similarity between the inflected and bare forms were taken into consideration and controlled for in a Generalized Additive Models for Location, Scale and Shape (GAMLSS; Stasinopoulos, M. D., R. A. Rigby, and F. De Bastiani. 2018. “GAMLSS: A Distributional Regression Approach.” Statistical Modelling 18 (3–4): 248–73). The results of a series of zero-one-inflated beta models suggest that there is a clear “uncanny” valley of lexemes that show similar proportions of verbal and nominal uses. Such lexemes have a lower proportion of inflectional uses when textual dispersion and context-dependency are controlled for. Furthermore, as soon as there is some degree of conversion, the probability that a lexeme is always encountered without inflection sharply rises. Disambiguation by means of inflection is unlikely to play a uniform role depending on the inflectional distribution of a lexeme.","PeriodicalId":293840,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131228972","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-06-01DOI: 10.1515/zaa-2021-frontmatter2
{"title":"Frontmatter","authors":"","doi":"10.1515/zaa-2021-frontmatter2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2021-frontmatter2","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":293840,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124437213","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract My article’s title borrows a line from Thomas Sayers Ellis’s poem “Skin, Inc.” (2010), a poem which uses the metaphor of incorporation in terms of its economic and formal affordances: formally as signifying upon a container, a box, in which the poet/lyric persona finds himself trapped as he is trying to create and to write; and economically, as signifying upon the poet as entrepreneur, who has to sell a brand and a product in the literary marketplace. Based on Pierre Bourdieu’s work on the theory of the literary field, I think of the poem as a form of poetic position-taking in the literary field in the Unites States in 2010. In my reading, I explore the literary marketplace as presented in the poem, and I argue that we can use this image of the market to think about the role of race in the literary field in the US, in particular with regard to what has been called the “post-soul aesthetic.”
{"title":"“No more little boxes” – Poetic Positionings in the Literary Field","authors":"Stefanie Mueller","doi":"10.1515/zaa-2020-2031","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2020-2031","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract My article’s title borrows a line from Thomas Sayers Ellis’s poem “Skin, Inc.” (2010), a poem which uses the metaphor of incorporation in terms of its economic and formal affordances: formally as signifying upon a container, a box, in which the poet/lyric persona finds himself trapped as he is trying to create and to write; and economically, as signifying upon the poet as entrepreneur, who has to sell a brand and a product in the literary marketplace. Based on Pierre Bourdieu’s work on the theory of the literary field, I think of the poem as a form of poetic position-taking in the literary field in the Unites States in 2010. In my reading, I explore the literary marketplace as presented in the poem, and I argue that we can use this image of the market to think about the role of race in the literary field in the US, in particular with regard to what has been called the “post-soul aesthetic.”","PeriodicalId":293840,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132723272","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This essay analyzes the gradual commercialization of the book market in the antebellum period. It shows that the reality of book publishing in the 1830s and 1840s has little to do with traditional accounts of the antebellum period developed in the wake of or in opposition to F. O. Matthiessen’s American Renaissance. The essay focuses in particular on Nathaniel Hawthorne’s ascent into the literary establishment of the 1840s—based mainly on the promotion of his Twice-Told Tales—and on the attempts to advertise Beecher-Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin across socially and politically diverse readerships in the South and the North.
{"title":"A Twice-Told Tale? Nathaniel Hawthorne, Genre, Sponsorship","authors":"Philipp Löffler","doi":"10.1515/zaa-2020-2027","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2020-2027","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This essay analyzes the gradual commercialization of the book market in the antebellum period. It shows that the reality of book publishing in the 1830s and 1840s has little to do with traditional accounts of the antebellum period developed in the wake of or in opposition to F. O. Matthiessen’s American Renaissance. The essay focuses in particular on Nathaniel Hawthorne’s ascent into the literary establishment of the 1840s—based mainly on the promotion of his Twice-Told Tales—and on the attempts to advertise Beecher-Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin across socially and politically diverse readerships in the South and the North.","PeriodicalId":293840,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133310914","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This essay argues that under contemporary capitalism, all literary production is, at first approximation, commodity production. This has consequences for our understanding of the work of literary studies. We are no longer able to easily recur to preformed theories of the ‘literary’ as a category at least in some way exempt from extrinsic pressures. Attention to the ‘literary market’ remains superficial when it insists on paying attention chiefly to so-called literary fiction on the understanding that it has prima facie higher claims to our attention than popular genre fiction—it does not. In fact, as this essay argues, appreciation of the thorough commodification of art under capitalism asks us to take seriously the need to break with our categories; to insist on the primacy of interpretative attention in determining what kinds of fiction we study.
{"title":"How to Read the ‘Literary’ in the Literary Market","authors":"T. Lanzendörfer","doi":"10.1515/zaa-2020-2026","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2020-2026","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This essay argues that under contemporary capitalism, all literary production is, at first approximation, commodity production. This has consequences for our understanding of the work of literary studies. We are no longer able to easily recur to preformed theories of the ‘literary’ as a category at least in some way exempt from extrinsic pressures. Attention to the ‘literary market’ remains superficial when it insists on paying attention chiefly to so-called literary fiction on the understanding that it has prima facie higher claims to our attention than popular genre fiction—it does not. In fact, as this essay argues, appreciation of the thorough commodification of art under capitalism asks us to take seriously the need to break with our categories; to insist on the primacy of interpretative attention in determining what kinds of fiction we study.","PeriodicalId":293840,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133351806","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Understood as amodern institution, literature is historically bound to the extension of market rationality. The commodification of literature since the late eighteenth century has changed the ways in which we handle literary works: rather than just perused by individual readers, books are promoted, traded, consumed, and legally protected. Over the past three decades, scholars have focused increased attention on how to conceptualize this encroachment of market principles into the sphere of culture (Agnew 1986; Bourdieu 1996; Woodmansee 1994). They have shown that concepts like ‘the fine arts’, ‘high literature’, and ‘aesthetic autonomy’ have evolved not in opposition but rather as historical responses to and functions of the commercialization and professionalization of culture. In so doing they have reflected upon an array of intersecting cultural developments such as the specialization of the poet as professional writer and distributor of a marketable commodity and the diversification of literary practice across artistic and commercial spaces. What conjoins these projects is thebroad questionof how to read the literarymarket. Many approaches toward literary market economies have pursued the aim of identifying the absent causes that determine literary production and consumption. This objective informed the works of marketplace critics of the 1980s (e.g., Gilmore 1985; Michaels 1987) but has also inspired the bulk of the more recent “New Economic Criticism” (e.g., McClanahan 2016; Poovey 2008). These branches of revisionist scholarship revolve around the social and economic, the material and ideological implications and constraints conditioning the production, reception, and distribution of literature. They emphasize literature’s crucial function as a site of political resistance and complicity, albeit by positing a rather static causality between the social and the cultural, politics and literature. A number of competing contemporary approaches stemming from the resurgence of the sociology of literature have provided alternatives to the premises
{"title":"How to Read the Literary Market: An Introduction","authors":"D. Breitenwischer, Philipp Löffler, Johannes Völz","doi":"10.1515/zaa-2020-2025","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2020-2025","url":null,"abstract":"Understood as amodern institution, literature is historically bound to the extension of market rationality. The commodification of literature since the late eighteenth century has changed the ways in which we handle literary works: rather than just perused by individual readers, books are promoted, traded, consumed, and legally protected. Over the past three decades, scholars have focused increased attention on how to conceptualize this encroachment of market principles into the sphere of culture (Agnew 1986; Bourdieu 1996; Woodmansee 1994). They have shown that concepts like ‘the fine arts’, ‘high literature’, and ‘aesthetic autonomy’ have evolved not in opposition but rather as historical responses to and functions of the commercialization and professionalization of culture. In so doing they have reflected upon an array of intersecting cultural developments such as the specialization of the poet as professional writer and distributor of a marketable commodity and the diversification of literary practice across artistic and commercial spaces. What conjoins these projects is thebroad questionof how to read the literarymarket. Many approaches toward literary market economies have pursued the aim of identifying the absent causes that determine literary production and consumption. This objective informed the works of marketplace critics of the 1980s (e.g., Gilmore 1985; Michaels 1987) but has also inspired the bulk of the more recent “New Economic Criticism” (e.g., McClanahan 2016; Poovey 2008). These branches of revisionist scholarship revolve around the social and economic, the material and ideological implications and constraints conditioning the production, reception, and distribution of literature. They emphasize literature’s crucial function as a site of political resistance and complicity, albeit by positing a rather static causality between the social and the cultural, politics and literature. A number of competing contemporary approaches stemming from the resurgence of the sociology of literature have provided alternatives to the premises","PeriodicalId":293840,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117148773","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Opening with James Weldon Johnson’s discourse on artistic greatness, I discuss William Dean Howells’s assessment of Paul Laurence Dunbar and Charles W. Chesnutt through the lens of the convertibility of literary capital, developed with Pierre Bourdieu. From within the racial taxonomy and with white middle-class readers as implied addressees, Howells conceives of both writers as participating in a literary market, a field structured by the tenets of realism. Howells endows Dunbar with universal literary capital and creates a regional affiliation that breaches the color line, before he singles out his poems written in vernacular notation as lasting contributions and asserts the valence of such notation as general poetic practice. On Chesnutt he bestows literary capital by marking and converting two innovations: the genre of the short story and the representation of a world in-between the racial divide. In turn, the convertibility of that world is secured by a comparison of social class habits.
从James Weldon Johnson关于艺术伟大的论述开始，我将讨论William Dean Howells对Paul Laurence Dunbar和Charles W. Chesnutt的评价，通过与Pierre Bourdieu共同开发的文学资本可兑换性的视角。从种族分类和白人中产阶级读者作为隐含的收件人来看，豪威尔斯认为两位作家都参与了一个文学市场，一个由现实主义原则构成的领域。豪威尔斯赋予邓巴普遍的文学资本并创造了一种打破颜色界限的区域联系，在他挑选出他用白话记谱法写的诗作为持久的贡献并断言这种记谱法的价值作为一般的诗歌实践之前。在切斯纳特身上，他通过标记和转换两项创新赋予了文学资本:短篇小说的体裁和种族鸿沟之间世界的表现。反过来，这个世界的可兑换性是由社会阶级习惯的比较来保证的。
{"title":"Greatness and the Convertibility of Literary Capital: W. D. Howells and Black Writers","authors":"Florian Sedlmeier","doi":"10.1515/zaa-2020-2030","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2020-2030","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Opening with James Weldon Johnson’s discourse on artistic greatness, I discuss William Dean Howells’s assessment of Paul Laurence Dunbar and Charles W. Chesnutt through the lens of the convertibility of literary capital, developed with Pierre Bourdieu. From within the racial taxonomy and with white middle-class readers as implied addressees, Howells conceives of both writers as participating in a literary market, a field structured by the tenets of realism. Howells endows Dunbar with universal literary capital and creates a regional affiliation that breaches the color line, before he singles out his poems written in vernacular notation as lasting contributions and asserts the valence of such notation as general poetic practice. On Chesnutt he bestows literary capital by marking and converting two innovations: the genre of the short story and the representation of a world in-between the racial divide. In turn, the convertibility of that world is secured by a comparison of social class habits.","PeriodicalId":293840,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132797547","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This essay aims at integrating conceptions of literary markets, marketing, and marketability into the study of literature. To combine textual and sociological analysis I look at spatial and spatializing strategies on various levels of literary communication: as fictional settings, as authorial placements, as reading situations, and publishing platforms. My contribution draws on Bourdieu’s interest in the economic side of literature as well as on more recent studies by Jim Collins and David Alworth, who have taken closer looks at the ecologies and affiliations linking literature to consumer culture and its affordances of product placement.
{"title":"From Product Placement to Boundary Work: Further Steps towards an Integrated Sociology of Literary Communication","authors":"J. Griem","doi":"10.1515/zaa-2020-2029","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2020-2029","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This essay aims at integrating conceptions of literary markets, marketing, and marketability into the study of literature. To combine textual and sociological analysis I look at spatial and spatializing strategies on various levels of literary communication: as fictional settings, as authorial placements, as reading situations, and publishing platforms. My contribution draws on Bourdieu’s interest in the economic side of literature as well as on more recent studies by Jim Collins and David Alworth, who have taken closer looks at the ecologies and affiliations linking literature to consumer culture and its affordances of product placement.","PeriodicalId":293840,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124590404","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Bourdieu’s concepts of cultural capital and field, developed in the 1970s and 1980s, still provide systematic reference points for studies interested in literary cultures under market conditions. These concepts have found resonance in studies observing the changing organisation, structure, and social positions involved in the writing, reading, and circulation of literature. While both the conceptual clarity and the historical results Bourdieu achieved (in particular in his study The Rules of Art, originally published in 1992) have come under attack, both his key concepts and his multi-method approach function as a theoretical toolbox for present studies. The article discusses three studies (Childress 2017; English 2005; Guillory 1993) which make use of Bourdieu’s concept of capital in order to describe contemporary US publishing, the role of literary canons in higher education, and the status of literary awards. I argue that Bourdieu’s framework is productive in these cases when it is used in a heuristic way, when the idea of cultural and social capital is considered as processes and practices of valuation, and when it points to the political aspects of economies.
{"title":"How Useful is Bourdieu’s Notion of Cultural Capital for Describing Literary Markets?","authors":"Nicole Glaubitz","doi":"10.1515/zaa-2020-2028","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2020-2028","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Bourdieu’s concepts of cultural capital and field, developed in the 1970s and 1980s, still provide systematic reference points for studies interested in literary cultures under market conditions. These concepts have found resonance in studies observing the changing organisation, structure, and social positions involved in the writing, reading, and circulation of literature. While both the conceptual clarity and the historical results Bourdieu achieved (in particular in his study The Rules of Art, originally published in 1992) have come under attack, both his key concepts and his multi-method approach function as a theoretical toolbox for present studies. The article discusses three studies (Childress 2017; English 2005; Guillory 1993) which make use of Bourdieu’s concept of capital in order to describe contemporary US publishing, the role of literary canons in higher education, and the status of literary awards. I argue that Bourdieu’s framework is productive in these cases when it is used in a heuristic way, when the idea of cultural and social capital is considered as processes and practices of valuation, and when it points to the political aspects of economies.","PeriodicalId":293840,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124438249","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This article aims to illustrate some aspects of film dubbing that are of interest to research in cognition and in particular to cognitive linguistics. Dubbed films contain unavoidable discrepancies between the lip movements and (other) gestures perceived visually and the sounds that are heard. Widening the scope to the issue of different accents of speakers, it is argued that multimodal construction grammar should investigate all modes of meaningful communicative behavior but that this does not necessarily imply the postulation of multimodal constructions as such.
{"title":"What Film Translation can Tell us About the Creation of Meaning, the Role of Accents and Gestures – A Few Essayistic Remarks About Multimodality","authors":"T. Herbst","doi":"10.1515/zaa-2020-2018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2020-2018","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article aims to illustrate some aspects of film dubbing that are of interest to research in cognition and in particular to cognitive linguistics. Dubbed films contain unavoidable discrepancies between the lip movements and (other) gestures perceived visually and the sounds that are heard. Widening the scope to the issue of different accents of speakers, it is argued that multimodal construction grammar should investigate all modes of meaningful communicative behavior but that this does not necessarily imply the postulation of multimodal constructions as such.","PeriodicalId":293840,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129479215","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：