| S-possessive (PR’s PE) and of-possessive (PE of PR) are two typical attributive possessives in Modern English. They constitute a case of grammatical variation or syntactic variation, i.e.’two ways of saying the same thing’. The present dissertation is a research on the choice between these two constructions, aiming at answering the following four questions:1) What are the factors that influence the choice between the two constructions?2) How do these factors influence the choice?3) Why do these factors influence the choice in such ways?4) When is the influence of these factors statistically significant and when it ceases to be so?Adopting the views of language and language use from both systemic-functional linguistics and cognitive linguistics, a theoretical framework is established to account for linguistic choices in cases of grammatical variation. The theoretical framework holds that when faced with two or more linguistic items capable of being used to realize similar meaning, the speaker is expected to choose the one whose form-meaning match better or best satisfies the speaker’s cognitive requirements. These requirements can be elicited from our daily cognitive experiences.Four modes of meaning are recognized in the theoretical framework. They are Halliday’s ideational meaning, interpersonal meaning and textual meaning, and Jakobson’s aesthetic meaning. These four modes of meaning are the four functional or semantic factors that influence linguistic choices, including that between s-possessive and of-possessive.As a result, in cases of grammatical variation, the speaker’s choice is motivated by the cognitive requirements for a better or best match between the form and these modes of meaning. These requirements are the four cognitive-functional motivations behind linguistic choices in cases of grammatical variation, including that between s-possessive and of-possessive.To check the validity of the theoretical framework in accounting for the grammatical variation between the two possessives, a corpus-based analysis is conducted. The results show that that all the four factors are working to influence the choice between the two possessives in one way or another, except textual meaning. This means our theoretical framework is proved to be generally valid: cognitive-functional motivations do to some extent influence the choice between the two possessives.Under the influence of ideational meaning, it is found that the preference for s-possessive decreases along the following cline of inalienability hierarchy:other social relationship>kinship>origin>body part>subjective>possession>other partitive>descriptive>objective>appositiveThis is largely in agreement with our hypothesis.χ2tests show that4pairs of neighboring meanings in the cline demonstrate a statistically significant difference in their preference for the two constructions. They are body part/subjective, subjective/possession, possession/other partitive, descriptive/objective. This means in the contrast within these pairs ideational meaning has significant influence on the choice between the two constructions.Under the influence of interpersonal meaning, it is found that the preference for s-possessive decreases along the following cline of animacy hierarchy of PR:human individual>human collective>animal>inanimate>abstract>activityThis is completely in agreement with our hypothesis.χ2tests show that3pairs of neighboring PRs in the cline demonstrate a statistically significant difference in their preference for the two constructions. They are human individual/human collective, inanimate/abstract, abstract/activity. This means in the contrast within these pairs interpersonal meaning has significant influence on the choice between the two constructions.Under the influence of textual meaning, it is found that ’given or more given’ PR demonstrates a general preference for s-possessive. This is in agreement with our hypothesis. However,’new or less given’ PR is also found to prefer s-possessive. This is against our hypothesis. Therefore it is concluded that textual meaning is not among the factors that influence the choice between the two possessives. The dissertation suggests that two reasons may have led to the result. One concerns the role of the two possessives in conveying information. The other concerns the grammatical relationship between the two entities in the two constructions.Under the influence of aesthetic meaning, it is found that s-possessive enjoys greater preference when PR is shorter than PE. By contrast, of-possessive enjoys greater preference when PR is longer than PE. This is completely in agreement with our hypothesis. χ2test shows that the difference in the preference for the two possessives by shorter PRs and longer PRs is statistically significant. This means aesthetic meaning has significant influence on the choice between the two constructions.Moreover, it is found that the absolute length of PR may have influenced the choice between the two possessives as well.χ2tests show that the influence is also significant. The dissertation concludes that this is another manifest of the working of aesthetic meaning. |
PDF Full Text Request