Luisa Ferretti Cuomo: Anatomia di un'immagine (Inferno II127-132). Saggio di lessicologia e di semantica strutturale. New York; San Francisco; Bern; Baltimore; Frankfurt am Main; Berlin; Wien; Paris: Peter Lang 1994 (Studies in Italian Culture; Vol 14), 200 S.

1997 ◽  
Vol 72 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Monika Pauer
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
San Francisco ◽  
Frankfurt Am Main ◽  
Italian Culture

Іллокуція англомовного дискурсу виправдання (на прикладі творів сучасної художньої англійської та американської прози)

2016 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 69-81
Author(s):  
Тетяна Мірончук ◽  
Наталія Одарчук
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Discourse Analysis ◽  
San Francisco ◽  
Speech Acts ◽  
Expert Witness ◽  
New Delhi ◽  
Frankfurt Am Main ◽  
Penguin Book ◽  
Oxford University ◽  
Oxford University Press

У статті досліджується актоіллокутивний потенціал англійського побутового дискурсу виправдання шляхом зіставлення іллокутивних характеристик частотних у дискурсі виправдання мовленнєвих актів. Спираючись на змодельовані конструкти змісту виправдання, дифенсивну інтенцію мовця визначено передумовою породження дискурсу виправдання.  У результаті вивчення наявних у науковій літературі класифікацій мовленнєвих актів визначено, що домінантна іллокутивна сила дискурсу виправдання включає складові інформування та переконування, що типово представлено констативом та асертивом. Власне мовленнєвий акт виправдання визначено як кредитив з включеною перлокуцією винесення виправдального вердикту, яким регулюється міжсуб’єктна взаємодія. Література References Вендлер З. Причинные отношения // Новое в зарубежной лингвистике. – Вып. 18:Логический анализ естественного языка. – М.: Прогресс, 1986. – С. 264–277.Vendler, Z. (1986). Prichinnije otnoshenija [Causal Relations]. In: New in World Linguistics,(pp. 264-277), Issue 18: Study in Logic of Natural Language. Moscow: Progress. Вендлер З. Факты в языке // Философия, логика, язык. – М.: Прогресс, 1987. – С. 293–318.Vendler, Z. (1987). Fakti v jazike [Facts in Language], (pp. 293-318). In: Phylosophy, Logic,Language. Moscow: Progress. Йоргенсен, Марианне В., Филлипс Луиза Дж. (2008). Дискурс-анализ. Теория и метод.Xарьков: Гуманитарный Центр [Humanitarian Centre].Jorgensen, M & Phillips, Louise. (2002). [Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method]. –London; Thousand Oaks; New Delhi. Карабан В. И. Сложные речевые единицы: прагматика английских асиндетическихполипредикативных образований: [монография] / Карабан В. И. – К.: Вища школа, 1989.Karaban, V. I. (1989). Slozhnije rechevije jedinitsi: pragmatika anglijskikh asindeticheskikhpolipredikativnikh obrazovanii [Complex Speech Acts: Pragmatics of English AsyndeticPolypredicative Formations]. Kyiv: Vyshcha Shkola. Остин Дж. Слово как действие // Новое в зарубежной лингвистике. – Вып. 17: ТРА. – М. :Прогресс, 1986. – С. 22–129.Austin, J. (1986). Slovo kak deistvije [Word as Action] In: New in World Linguistics, (pp. 22–129), Issue 17: Speech Acts Theory. M.: Progress. Хилпинен Р. Семантика императивов и деонтическая логика // Новое в зарубежнойлингвистике. – Вып. 18: Логический анализ естественного языка. – М. : Прогресс, 1986. –С. 300–318.Hilpinen, R. (1986). Semantica imperativov i deonticheskaja logica [Semantics of Imperativesand Deontic Logic]. In: New in World Linguistics, (pp. 300–318), Issue 18: Study in Logic ofNatural Language. Moscow: Progress. Шевченко І. С. Дискурс як мисленнєво-комунікативна діяльність / І. С. Шевченко,О. І. Морозова // Дискурс як когнітивно-комунікативний феномен: [кол. монографія] / [зазаг. ред. І. С. Шевченко]. – Х. : Константа, 2005. – С. 21–28.Shevchenko, I. (2005). Dyskurs jak myslenevo-komunikatyvna diyalnist [Discourse as Mentaland Communicative Activity]. In: Discourse as Cognitive and Communicative Phenomenon,(pp. 21–28). I. Shevchenko, (ed.). Kharkiv: Konstanta. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Auwera, J. van der. (1980). On the Meaning of Basic Speech Acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 4(3), 253–303. Auwera, J. van der & Alsenoy, L. van. (2016). On the Typology of Negative Concord. Studiesin Language, 40, 473–512. Bach, K. & Harnish, R. M. (1979). Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge,Mass.: MIT Press. Ballmer, Th. T. & Brennenstuhl, W. (1981). A Study in the Lexical Analysis of EnglishSpeech Activity Verbs. New York, Berlin: Ruhr-Universität. Dijk, T. A. van. (1997). The Study of Discourse. In: Discourse as Structure and Process,(pp. 1–35). London: Sage Publications. Grice, H. P. (1991). Logic & Conversation. Pragmatics, 305–316. Gruber, H. (1998). Disagreeing: Sequential Placement and Internal Structure of Disagreementsin Conflict Episodes. Text, 4 (18), 467–503. Habermas, J. (1981). Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. In: Handlungsrationalität undgesellschaftliche Rationalisierung. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. New York, London: Longman. Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. London, New York, Melbourne etc: CUP. Rees-Miller, J. (2000). Power, severity & context in disagreement. The Journal of Pragmatics,8 (32), 1087–1111. Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schifrin, D. (2001). Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell. Schlieben Lange, Br. (1975). Linguistische Pragmatik. Stuttgart, Berlin: Kohlhammer. Stalnaker, R. (1978). Assertion. In: Syntax & Semantics, (pp. 315–333), Vol. 9: Pragmatics.New York, San Francisco, London. Tatsuki, D. H. (2000). If my complaints could passion move: an interlanguage study ofaggression. The Journal of Pragmatics, 7 (32), 1003–1007. Tannen, D. (1995). You Just Don’t Understand. N.Y.: University of California. Tsui, A. B. M. (1995). English Conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wunderlich, D. (1980). Methodological Remarks on Speech Act Theory. In: Speech ActTheory & Pragmatics, (pp. 291–312), Vol. 10. Dordrecht : D. Reidel Publ. Comp. Джерела іллюстративного матеріалу Sources Amis, M. (1991). Time’s Arrow. London: Penguin Book. Christie, A. (1945). Death Comes at the End. London: Fontana. Francis, D. (1992). Longshot. New York: Fawcett Crest. Gardner, J. (1987). The Sunlight Dialogues. New York: Vintage Books. James, P.D. (1977). Death of an Expert Witness. London: Penguin Books. O’Hara, J. (1985). Ten North Frederik. New York: Carol and Graph Publ. Pronzini, B. (1990). I didn’t Do It. In: New Crimes, 2, (136–140). London: Robinson Publ.8. Rendel, R. (1985). All Unkindness of Ravens. London: Hutchinson.

Exceptional America

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mugambi Jouet
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
San Francisco ◽  
Mass Incarceration ◽  
American Exceptionalism ◽  
Wealth Inequality ◽  
Law School ◽  
Gun Control ◽  
Alexis De Tocqueville ◽  
American Conservatism ◽  
The Bible

Americans are far more divided than other Westerners over basic issues, including wealth inequality, health care, climate change, evolution, the literal truth of the Bible, apocalyptical prophecies, gender roles, abortion, gay rights, sexual education, gun control, mass incarceration, the death penalty, torture, human rights, and war. The intense polarization of U.S. conservatives and liberals has become a key dimension of American exceptionalism—an idea widely misunderstood as American superiority. It is rather what makes America an exception, for better or worse. While exceptionalism once was largely a source of strength, it may now spell decline, as unique features of U.S. history, politics, law, culture, religion, and race relations foster grave conflicts and injustices. They also shed light on the peculiar ideological evolution of American conservatism, which long predated Trumpism. Anti-intellectualism, conspiracy-mongering, radical anti-governmentalism, and Christian fundamentalism are far more common in America than Europe, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Drawing inspiration from Alexis de Tocqueville, Mugambi Jouet explores American exceptionalism’s intriguing roots as a multicultural outsider-insider. Raised in Paris by a French mother and Kenyan father, he then lived throughout America, from the Bible Belt to New York, California, and beyond. His articles have notably been featured in The New Republic, Slate, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Huffington Post, and Le Monde. He teaches at Stanford Law School.

The “Japanese Turn” in Fine Dining in the United States, 1980–2020

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 45-54
Author(s):  
Samuel H. Yamashita
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
Los Angeles ◽  
San Francisco ◽  
San Francisco Bay Area ◽  
The United States ◽  
First Century ◽  
Further Training ◽  
Bay Area ◽  
Wide Acceptance

In the 1970s, Japanese cooks began to appear in the kitchens of nouvelle cuisine chefs in France for further training, with scores more arriving in the next decades. Paul Bocuse, Alain Chapel, Joël Robuchon, and other leading French chefs started visiting Japan to teach, cook, and sample Japanese cuisine, and ten of them eventually opened restaurants there. In the 1980s and 1990s, these chefs' frequent visits to Japan and the steady flow of Japanese stagiaires to French restaurants in Europe and the United States encouraged a series of changes that I am calling the “Japanese turn,” which found chefs at fine-dining establishments in Los Angeles, New York City, and later the San Francisco Bay Area using an ever-widening array of Japanese ingredients, employing Japanese culinary techniques, and adding Japanese dishes to their menus. By the second decade of the twenty-first century, the wide acceptance of not only Japanese ingredients and techniques but also concepts like umami (savory tastiness) and shun (seasonality) suggest that Japanese cuisine is now well known to many American chefs.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document