Taxis is a functional grammatical category, referring to a sequence and interdependence of events in a sentence. The most important indicator of this grammatical category is a combination of two or more verbal forms in the sentence. The combination of the verbal forms needs to satisfy several conditions. The category is represented by morphological, syntactic or lexical language units. Semantics of taxis expresses relations of different actions in the time period (simultaneity, antecedence and following).
According to Johnson (1987), an important generalisation that emerges from these conceptual metaphors is that conceptual metaphors typically employ a more abstract concept as target and a more concrete or physical concept as their source. Although this process may typically be formulated as ‘TARGET DOMAIN IS SOURCE DOMAIN’ (Lakoff 1993, 207), it does not mean that the two domains are identical. Only certain aspects of the source domain are mapped onto the target domain, depending on which aspects of the target one intends to highlight (cf. Lakoff and Johnson 1980; Kövecses 2002). Given the partial nature of metaphorical mappings, it follows logically that different source domains can be used to focus on different aspects of the same target
Moreover, a linking predicate indicates the relation between two arguments, which take the semantic role called theme and associate. In the example 5a, the theme (Mary) is the role of an argument that is denoted by the predicate, which is stative. The associate is the role of an argument that identifies some other entity (George). 5a Mary is with George. The place is another semantic role presented by Kreidler.
If so, a prima facie duty of care arose. The first stage of the test in the case of Anns v Merton LBC  AC 728 incorporates the neighbour principle by Lord Atkin. Then, secondly, it was necessary to consider whether there were any considerations that ought to “negative, or to reduce or limit” that duty. The second stage of the test predicts ‘policy’ factors that negating, reducing or limiting a duty, which but for those policy reasons would be
The implication of Modality Halliday (2004:72), Lyon (1977) and Ye (2010) pin out that modality also shows a fundamental role and gives certain meanings and nuances in speech through utilizing the interpersonal metafunction of clauses relating to what degree the proposition seems valid. He adds that modality can also indicate the space between “yes” and “no”, relating to the speaker’s assessment of the probability or obligations of what he she is saying. Scholars like Fairclough (1992), Lyons (1977) and Thompson (2000:57) state that modality consists of two terms Modalisation and Modulation, i.e., ‘epistemic’ and ‘deontic’. Ye (2010) argues that the former term "modalisation" relates to the speaker’s judgment of the validity of the proposition,
نَزَّلَ عَلَيْكَ الْكِتٰبَ He has sent down upon you, [O Muhammad], the Book…… (3:3) THE COGNITIVE VIEW OF METONYMY: Newmark (125) points out that metonymy occur ‘where the name of an object is transferred to take the place of something else with which it is associated’. This substitution is conditioned by the existence of a contiguity relation between the literal and figurative meanings and the existence of an implicit
The first axiom involves the nature of reality; the naturalistic inquiry paradigm advances the view that since multiple constructed realities exist, “inquiry into these multiple realities will inevitably diverge” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 37). The second axiom involves the relationship of knower to known; the naturalistic inquiry paradigm accepts that “the inquirer and the ‘object’ of the inquiry interact to influence one another” (p. 37). The third axiom concerns the possibility of generalization; the naturalistic inquiry paradigm forbears generalization in the positivistic sense, and instead proposes, “the aim of inquiry is to develop knowledge in the form of ‘working hypotheses’ that describe the individual case” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 38). The fourth axiom is about the possibility of causal linkages; the naturalistic inquiry paradigm refrains from drawing cause-effect connections, and instead claims, “all entities are in a state of mutual simultaneous shaping so that it is impossible to distinguish causes from effects” (p. 38). The fifth axiom involves the role of values in inquiry; the naturalistic inquiry paradigm accepts that “inquiry is value bound” (p. 38), suggesting the following
Both techniques employ inductive approach, Inductive analysis means that the patterns, themes, and categories of analysis come from data; they emerged out of the data rather than being imposed on them prior to data collection and analysis (Patton, 1980 in Bowen 2006). Both narrative analysis and grounded theory, along with case study, phenomenological, ethnography are qualitative approach of inquiry. Differences: Narrative analysis does not employ coding strategies for example; in vivo or line by line but focuses instead on temporality and sequencing of storied experiences or linguistic structure and use of language (Floersch et.al. 2010). In grounded theory, open axial and selective coding is prevalent and evident.
He thinks that there is no full equivalence between any two languages because the translator is making use of synonyms and we cannot rely on them to be identical. He defines translation as being two equivalent messages with two different codes. Vinay and Darbelnet (1995) agree with him on the insufficient outcome of relying solely on the linguistic approach of translation. They state that translation involves the same situation but with different words. Jakobson with the other two theorists mentioned above think that translation is not impossible because there are different methods that the translator can choose from in order to
This new perspective on the study of translation challenges the current traditional way of thinking by investigating translation as a social and cultural practice. By abandoning the conventional ideas of fidelity, equivalence and correspondence as the exclusive determinants of textual production and representation “[t]ranslators are told that in order to do their work correctly they must understand the culture of the original text, that texts are ‘embedded’ in a culture.” (Simon, 1996: 130) Translation is no longer considered a simple transfer of a source text into a target text, but rather a procedure tightly dependent on the factors through which a textual production occurs, as well as the factors regarding the social, racial, political and cultural background of the translator. Bassnett (2005: 398) reinforces the argument of translation being far more than a simple activity by stating