A cognitive account of subjectivity put to the test: using an insertion task to investigate Mandarin result connectives

IF 1.8 1区 文学 N/A LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS Cognitive Linguistics Pub Date : 2021-10-20 DOI:10.1515/cog-2020-0075
Hongling Xiao, R. van Hout, T. Sanders, W. Spooren
{"title":"A cognitive account of subjectivity put to the test: using an insertion task to investigate Mandarin result connectives","authors":"Hongling Xiao, R. van Hout, T. Sanders, W. Spooren","doi":"10.1515/cog-2020-0075","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article aims to further test the cognitive claims of the so-called subjectivity account of causal events and their linguistic markers, causal connectives. We took Mandarin Chinese, a language that is typologically completely different from the usual western languages, as a case to provide evidence for this subjectivity account. Complementary to the commonly used corpora analyses, we employed crowdsourcing to tap native speakers’ intuitions about causal coherence, focusing on four result connectives kějiàn ‘therefore’, suǒyǐ ‘so’, yīncǐ ‘so/for this reason’ and yúshì ‘thereupon/as a result’. The analysis shows systematic differences regarding the use of connectives in relations that differ in terms of subjectivity, demonstrating that native speakers make use of subjectivity to encode and decode different types of causal relations in discourse. Moreover, our study evidences that a comprehensive model of subjectivity should include the epistemic dimension of certainty about the subjectivity scale that might be indicated by other linguistic elements. In-depth analyses of the test items revealed that the presence/absence of modality words in the result segments are related to different preferential patterns for the connectives. There is a trade-off between the epistemic dimension of certainty and the expression of subjectivity in the four connectives involved.","PeriodicalId":51530,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Linguistics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Linguistics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2020-0075","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"N/A","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract This article aims to further test the cognitive claims of the so-called subjectivity account of causal events and their linguistic markers, causal connectives. We took Mandarin Chinese, a language that is typologically completely different from the usual western languages, as a case to provide evidence for this subjectivity account. Complementary to the commonly used corpora analyses, we employed crowdsourcing to tap native speakers’ intuitions about causal coherence, focusing on four result connectives kějiàn ‘therefore’, suǒyǐ ‘so’, yīncǐ ‘so/for this reason’ and yúshì ‘thereupon/as a result’. The analysis shows systematic differences regarding the use of connectives in relations that differ in terms of subjectivity, demonstrating that native speakers make use of subjectivity to encode and decode different types of causal relations in discourse. Moreover, our study evidences that a comprehensive model of subjectivity should include the epistemic dimension of certainty about the subjectivity scale that might be indicated by other linguistic elements. In-depth analyses of the test items revealed that the presence/absence of modality words in the result segments are related to different preferential patterns for the connectives. There is a trade-off between the epistemic dimension of certainty and the expression of subjectivity in the four connectives involved.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
主体性的认知解释:用插入任务考察普通话结果连接词
摘要本文旨在进一步验证所谓因果事件主体性解释及其语言标记因果连接词的认知主张。我们以汉语普通话为例,为这种主体性解释提供证据,汉语普通话是一种与通常的西方语言在类型学上完全不同的语言。作为常用的语料库分析的补充,我们采用众包的方法来挖掘母语人士对因果一致性的直觉,重点关注四个结果连接词kějiàn“因此”、suǒyǐ“所以”、y ncz“所以/因为这个原因”和yúshì“因此/作为结果”。分析表明,在主体性不同的关系中,连接词的使用存在系统差异,表明母语人士利用主体性对语篇中不同类型的因果关系进行编码和解码。此外,我们的研究表明,一个全面的主体性模型应该包括主体性尺度确定性的认知维度,这可能由其他语言元素表示。对测试项目的深入分析表明,结果语段中情态词的出现与不同的连接词偏好模式有关。在确定性的认知维度和所涉及的四个连接词的主体性表达之间存在权衡。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
17.60%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: Cognitive Linguistics presents a forum for linguistic research of all kinds on the interaction between language and cognition. The journal focuses on language as an instrument for organizing, processing and conveying information. Cognitive Linguistics is a peer-reviewed journal of international scope and seeks to publish only works that represent a significant advancement to the theory or methods of cognitive linguistics, or that present an unknown or understudied phenomenon. Topics the structural characteristics of natural language categorization (such as prototypicality, cognitive models, metaphor, and imagery); the functional principles of linguistic organization, as illustrated by iconicity; the conceptual interface between syntax and semantics; the experiential background of language-in-use, including the cultural background; the relationship between language and thought, including matters of universality and language specificity.
期刊最新文献
Using constructions to measure developmental language complexity The role of constructions in understanding predictability measures and their correspondence to word duration A related-event approach to event integration in Japanese complex predicates: iconicity, frequency, or efficiency? Multimodal constructions revisited. Testing the strength of association between spoken and non-spoken features of Tell me about it The colexification of vision and cognition in Mandarin: controlled activity surpasses uncontrolled experience
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1