Hopper-Thompson

1 files changed, 56 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/hopper-thompson-handout.tex b/hopper-thompson-handout.tex
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8d15c6d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/hopper-thompson-handout.tex
@@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
+\documentclass[a4paper]{article}
+
+\usepackage[top=2cm]{geometry}
+\usepackage[british]{babel}
+\usepackage{stfloats}
+
+\usepackage{handouts}
+
+\usepackage[hidelinks]{hyperref}
+\usepackage{tikz}
+\usepackage[font=small]{caption}
+
+\title{\Large Handout of ``Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse''\footnote{Paul J. Hopper and Sandra A. Thompson (1980).}}
+\author{Camil Staps}
+
+\begin{document}
+
+\maketitle
+
+\summary{
+	Transitivity is traditionally understood as a global property of an entire clause,
+	but in this paper the authors look at different transitivity features that lower level clause elements are marked for\pagenr{251}.
+	\parnote{%
+		These features are
+			\term{participants} (2+, A and O --- 1),
+			\term{kinesis} (action --- non-action),
+			\term{aspect} (telic --- atelic),
+			\term{punctuality},
+			\term{volitionality},
+			\term{affirmation},
+			\term{mode} (realis --- irrealis),
+			\term{agency},
+			\term{affectedness of O},
+			\term{individuation of O}.
+	}
+
+	The hypothesis is that when two phrases are marked for any of these features,
+		their markings are at the same end of the transitivity scale\pagenr{255}.
+	This does not predict whether a phrase is marked or not.
+	Transitivity features may be manifested both morphosyntactically and semantically.
+
+	The hypothesis itself is supported by a lot of data,
+		but this data only shows correlation, no causation\pagenr{280}.
+	In other words, we are looking for a communicative reason why all the transitivity features would correlate.
+	This reason is the concept of grounding:
+		\term{background} is that part of discourse which does not vitally contribute to the speaker's goal,
+		as opposed to \term{foreground}.
+	All the transitivity features correlate logically with this concept.
+
+	The hypothesis supports the traditional understanding that transitivity is a feature of a clause\pagenr{294}.
+
+	When a particular feature is foregrounded depends on the distinction between foregrounded and backgrounded discourse.
+	Hence, properties that are irrelevant to foregrounding are also irrelevant to transitivity.
+}
+
+\end{document}