On English Pseudo-coordination Constructions Based On The CAD Model

Pseudo-coordination constructions have long been regarded as a kind offigurative device to embellish one’s writing style. Quirk et al.(1985, pp.978-979) putforward two types of plausible coordination and name them“PSEUDO-COORDINATION”. On account of the similarities and convergencesbetween hendiadys and pseudo-coordination constructions, many studies of theconstructions have been conducted from the perspective of rhetoric, traditionalgrammar and semantics etc., and few studies have been devoted to the analysis underthe framework of cognitive linguistics, which leaves space for this thesis. Under theframework of the ‘CAD Model’ which is integrated from the Coercion Model inconstruction and the Autonomy-Dependence Model, this study intends to analyse theinterpretation mechanism and phonological, syntactic, semantic and pragmaticfeatures of pseudo-coordination constructions, which can provide further reference fortheir translation in practice.This thesis mainly tries to make a qualitative study of pseudo-coordinationconstructions based on the integration ‘CAD Model’. Chapter One mainly introducesthe background, objectives, methodology and layout of the thesis. Chapter Two firstlydelimits the concept of pseudo-coordination constructions, and then it makes a reviewon the previous studies and points out the gaps at the end. Chapter Three includes theintroduction to the theoretical framework of the ‘CAD Model’, the rationale forintegration and the operation of the general ‘CAD Model’. Chapter Four classifies thepseudo-coordination constructions into ‘N1and N2’ construction,‘A1and A2’construction and ‘V1and V2’ construction, and then applies the ‘CAD Model’ to49examples that have been chosen from the publicized papers, the Internet and someliterary works, and finally discusses the general features and translation problems ofthe constructions. Chapter Five mainly discusses the contributions, significance andlimitations of the study.Through the study, we find that:1) In contrast with the Coercion Model in construction or the Autonomy-Dependency Model alone, the ‘CAD Model’ canefficiently explain the mental process of the semantic integration and the cause for thealignment of the pre-and and post-and items in the mean time from the theoreticalaspect.2) Both the pre-and items and the post-and items in the ‘N1and N2’construction and the ‘A1and A2’ construction can be the dependent element, and beused to modify the other element. However, the difference is that N2modifies orsubordinates to N1most often in ‘N1and N2’ construction while A1subordinates to orembellishes A2most usually in ‘A1and A2’ construction. As for the ‘V1and V2’construction, the situation is that V1is always modifies or subordinates to V2. What’smore, in the process of coercion under the framework of the ‘CAD Model’, thereexists coercion degree. In other word, the power of coercion is scaled and different.Under the leading role of the constructional meaning, the autonomous element mayonly force the meaning of the dependent element to change, or sometimes forces thedependent element to change its meaning and form, or even forces the dependentelement to change into a totally different word.3) From the analysis of the generalfeatures and translation problems of pseudo-coordination constructions, this studyreveals that we should pay attention to those features in their translation, and restorethose features as possible as we can.This thesis is based on the qualitative study. The examples that have been chosenare typical; however, they still lack diversity. The new analytical model in this study isbased on the subjective judgment of the author. More evidence is in need to verify it.