Ineta Dabašinskienė, Laura Kamandulytė-Merfeldienė
The study aims to describe and interpret the results of testing the speech of Lithuanian children in order to find out whether language-specific features of Lithuanian as a highly inflected language help children grasp the complex syntactic relations between the subject and the object in relative clauses. The investigation has been aimed to test the hypothesis to the effect that depending on the language type, object relative clauses are more difficult to acquire than subject relative clauses (Guasti, Cardinaletti 2003; Utzeri 2007; Brandt, Diessel, Tomasello 2008; O’Grady, Kim, Lee et al. 2011; Benţea 2012). The findings of the research support the hypothesis that relative clauses as objects (the OO type) are more difficult to grasp than those that function as subjects (OS). This claim has been statistically confirmed in the group of 3 – 4.5 year-olds, which had a big difficulty in perceiving the difference between relative clauses functioning as subjects or objects. These findings are in line with claims related to other languages, which demonstrate that children in early childhood, distinguishing between OS or OO, misinterpret the OO type more often (Guasti, Stavrakaki, Arosio 2008). However, when an unusual, strange situation is described, or an unfamiliar verb is used, children tend to assign the same syntactic function to the head noun and the relative pronoun; in such cases the OS clause is interpreted as the OO type. This tendency also supports the parallel-function hypothesis advanced by Tavakolian (1981). In later years children already perceive the difference between the OS and OO type relative clauses, but in a pre-school period misinterpretations of the OO type are quite numerous. Children of schooling age, on the other hand, have no difficulty in interpreting this difference correctly. The results of the present study confirm the assertion that older children grasp the functions of relative clauses and interpret complex structures more easily: they gradually realize that there are two different propositions conveyed in the main and the subordinate clause. It is assumed that children understand and start using relative clauses when their language processing skills have improved, and this happens while they are getting older. In addition to language processing skills, it is important to pay due attention to the frequency of usage principle. Our research findings show that subject relative clauses are more frequent in child-directed speech, and they also appear earlier in a spontaneous child language than object clauses; this is exactly what influences an easier perception of subject relative clauses. Semantic and pragmatic factors have to be mentioned as well: while acquiring a language, children master those grammatical structures where a particular form correlates with a particular meaning more easily (Diessel, Tomassello 2000). It might be assumed that an inflectional system of Lithuanian enables children to easier interpret the
本研究旨在描述和解释立陶宛儿童的言语测试结果，以了解立陶宛语作为一种高度屈折的语言的语言特征是否有助于儿童掌握关系从句中主语和宾语之间复杂的句法关系。调查的目的是检验假设，即根据语言类型，宾语关系从句比主语关系从句更难习得(Guasti, Cardinaletti 2003;Utzeri 2007;勃兰特，迪塞尔，托马塞洛2008;O’grady, Kim, Lee et al. 2011;2012年本ţea)。研究结果支持了一个假设，即作为宾语的关系从句(OO型)比作为主语的关系从句(OS型)更难掌握。这一说法在3 - 4.5岁的孩子群体中得到了统计证实，他们在感知作为主语或宾语的关系从句之间的差异方面有很大的困难。这些发现与其他语言相关的说法是一致的，这些说法表明，早期儿童在区分OS或OO时，更容易误解OO类型(Guasti, Stavrakaki, Arosio 2008)。然而，当描述一个不寻常的、奇怪的情况，或者使用一个不熟悉的动词时，儿童倾向于将相同的句法功能赋予头名词和关系代词;在这种情况下，OS子句被解释为OO类型。这种趋势也支持了Tavakolian(1981)提出的平行函数假说。在以后的几年中，儿童已经感知到OS和OO型关系从句之间的差异，但在学龄前时期，对OO型的误解相当多。另一方面，学龄儿童在正确解释这种差异方面没有困难。本研究的结果证实了年龄较大的儿童更容易掌握关系从句的功能，更容易理解复杂的结构，他们逐渐意识到在主句和从句中表达的是两种不同的命题。人们认为，当孩子们的语言处理能力有所提高时，他们就会理解并开始使用关系从句，而这是在他们长大后发生的。除了语言处理技巧外，重要的是要注意使用频率原则。研究结果表明，主语关系从句在儿童指向语中出现的频率更高，在儿童自发语中出现的时间也比宾语从句早;这正是影响人们更容易理解主语关系从句的原因。语义和语用因素也必须提到:在学习语言的同时，儿童更容易掌握那些特定形式与特定意义相关的语法结构(Diessel, Tomassello 2000)。可以假设立陶宛语的屈折系统使儿童能够更容易地解释主句和关系从句之间的句法关系(参见，例如Arnon 2010);然而，本研究的结果表明，关系从句的结构是复杂的、多层次的，不仅包括形态因素，还包括语义和语用因素，未来应该对这些因素进行更深入的研究。还必须强调的是，在研究儿童语言的同时，评估成人语言的影响也很重要，成人语言为儿童倾听和理解不同复杂程度的句法结构提供了必要的环境。此外，语言中丰富的词形系统使人们更容易掌握句子成分的复杂句法功能的假设只是部分得到了证实——研究结果表明，立陶宛儿童掌握正确使用关系分句需要时间。
{"title":"Šalutiniai pažyminio sakiniai: kodėl vaikams sunku juos suprasti?","authors":"Ineta Dabašinskienė, Laura Kamandulytė-Merfeldienė","doi":"10.15388/KLBT.2014.7673","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15388/KLBT.2014.7673","url":null,"abstract":"The study aims to describe and interpret the results of testing the speech of Lithuanian children in order to find out whether language-specific features of Lithuanian as a highly inflected language help children grasp the complex syntactic relations between the subject and the object in relative clauses. The investigation has been aimed to test the hypothesis to the effect that depending on the language type, object relative clauses are more difficult to acquire than subject relative clauses (Guasti, Cardinaletti 2003; Utzeri 2007; Brandt, Diessel, Tomasello 2008; O’Grady, Kim, Lee et al. 2011; Benţea 2012). The findings of the research support the hypothesis that relative clauses as objects (the OO type) are more difficult to grasp than those that function as subjects (OS). This claim has been statistically confirmed in the group of 3 – 4.5 year-olds, which had a big difficulty in perceiving the difference between relative clauses functioning as subjects or objects. These findings are in line with claims related to other languages, which demonstrate that children in early childhood, distinguishing between OS or OO, misinterpret the OO type more often (Guasti, Stavrakaki, Arosio 2008). However, when an unusual, strange situation is described, or an unfamiliar verb is used, children tend to assign the same syntactic function to the head noun and the relative pronoun; in such cases the OS clause is interpreted as the OO type. This tendency also supports the parallel-function hypothesis advanced by Tavakolian (1981). In later years children already perceive the difference between the OS and OO type relative clauses, but in a pre-school period misinterpretations of the OO type are quite numerous. Children of schooling age, on the other hand, have no difficulty in interpreting this difference correctly. The results of the present study confirm the assertion that older children grasp the functions of relative clauses and interpret complex structures more easily: they gradually realize that there are two different propositions conveyed in the main and the subordinate clause. It is assumed that children understand and start using relative clauses when their language processing skills have improved, and this happens while they are getting older. In addition to language processing skills, it is important to pay due attention to the frequency of usage principle. Our research findings show that subject relative clauses are more frequent in child-directed speech, and they also appear earlier in a spontaneous child language than object clauses; this is exactly what influences an easier perception of subject relative clauses. Semantic and pragmatic factors have to be mentioned as well: while acquiring a language, children master those grammatical structures where a particular form correlates with a particular meaning more easily (Diessel, Tomassello 2000). It might be assumed that an inflectional system of Lithuanian enables children to easier interpret the ","PeriodicalId":30274,"journal":{"name":"Kalbotyra","volume":"66 1","pages":"7-26"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66941931","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In diesem kontrastiv ausgerichteten Beitrag werden bewertende Ausdrucke in deutschen und litauischen Gerichtsurteilen in Zivilsachen behandelt. Als Belegkorpus dienen jeweils 10 deutsche und litauische Urteile, die von unterschiedlichen Gerichten erlassen worden sind und unterschiedliche Gegenstande haben. Unter Bewertung wird dabei das Ergebnis des Bewertungsprozesses verstanden, d. h. lexikalische und grammatische Mittel, durch die die Einstellung des Gerichts – des bewertenden Subjekts in dieser Textsorte – zu bestimmten Bewertungsobjekten zum Ausdruck kommt. Das Hauptaugenmerk gilt dabei den Bewertungsaspekten, d. h. den Merkmalen, die den Bewertungsobjekten von dem bewertenden Subjekt zugesprochen werden, sowie ihrem sprachlichen Ausdruck. Fakultative Elemente der Bewertung, etwa ihre Motivierung und Mittel zu ihrer Verstarkung bzw. Abschwachung, werden auch untersucht. Ferner behandelt der Beitrag auch sprachliche Mittel zur Indizierung dessen, dass ein bestimmter Sachverhalt in dieser konkreten Rechtssache irrelevant ist und aus diesem Grund nicht bewertet werden muss.
{"title":"Zum Ausdruck der Bewertung in deutschen und litauischen gerichtlichen Entscheidungen","authors":"Virginija Masiulionytė","doi":"10.15388/KLBT.2014.7675","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15388/KLBT.2014.7675","url":null,"abstract":"In diesem kontrastiv ausgerichteten Beitrag werden bewertende Ausdrucke in deutschen und litauischen Gerichtsurteilen in Zivilsachen behandelt. Als Belegkorpus dienen jeweils 10 deutsche und litauische Urteile, die von unterschiedlichen Gerichten erlassen worden sind und unterschiedliche Gegenstande haben. Unter Bewertung wird dabei das Ergebnis des Bewertungsprozesses verstanden, d. h. lexikalische und grammatische Mittel, durch die die Einstellung des Gerichts – des bewertenden Subjekts in dieser Textsorte – zu bestimmten Bewertungsobjekten zum Ausdruck kommt. Das Hauptaugenmerk gilt dabei den Bewertungsaspekten, d. h. den Merkmalen, die den Bewertungsobjekten von dem bewertenden Subjekt zugesprochen werden, sowie ihrem sprachlichen Ausdruck. Fakultative Elemente der Bewertung, etwa ihre Motivierung und Mittel zu ihrer Verstarkung bzw. Abschwachung, werden auch untersucht. Ferner behandelt der Beitrag auch sprachliche Mittel zur Indizierung dessen, dass ein bestimmter Sachverhalt in dieser konkreten Rechtssache irrelevant ist und aus diesem Grund nicht bewertet werden muss.","PeriodicalId":30274,"journal":{"name":"Kalbotyra","volume":"63 1","pages":"46-76"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66941987","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The paper examines Lithuanian posture constructions such as stovi stacias ‘stands uprightʼ which have been briefly discussed in Holvoet (2008). However, a more exhaustive examination has not been carried out yet. The discussion is based on 1002 examples from The Corpus of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language . Some of the secondary predicates occurring in posture constructions exhibit semantic features of either resultatives or depictives, while the others cannot be clearly judged as resultatives or depictives since they show both kinds of features. The encoding of the secondary predicates also oscillates between the depictive and the resultative marking. Thus the purpose of the paper is to establish the factors which determine different semantic interpretations and different formal marking of the construction. The author follows Holvoet (2008) in assuming that the semantic structure of the constructions depends on the semantic features of the verb. It is proposed that the lexical aspect and the lexical meaning of the verb determine a resultative, a depictive or a “neutralized” (“intermediate”) interpretation of the construction. As the data show, the secondary predicate is usually encoded by an adjective (depictive-like marking), however, sometimes it is expressed by an adverb (resultative-like marking) as well. It is assumed that the choice between the adjective and the adverb is determined by the lexical features of the secondary predicate rather than of the verb. Some of the posture notions seem to be more oriented towards the participant of an event and thus opt to be expressed by an adjective, while others are more oriented towards the event and therefore are encoded by an adverb. It is hypothesized that the reason for the oscillating marking lies in the constructions with a neutralized meaning. The cases which are ambiguous between the depictive and the resultative meaning constitute a precondition for establishing the double marking. This twofold marking is then extended to the constructions which carry clearly the depictive or the resultative meaning.
{"title":"Pozicijos konstrukcijos: tarp depiktyvų ir rezultatyvų","authors":"Benita Riaubienė","doi":"10.15388/KLBT.2014.7677","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15388/KLBT.2014.7677","url":null,"abstract":"The paper examines Lithuanian posture constructions such as stovi stacias ‘stands uprightʼ which have been briefly discussed in Holvoet (2008). However, a more exhaustive examination has not been carried out yet. The discussion is based on 1002 examples from The Corpus of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language . Some of the secondary predicates occurring in posture constructions exhibit semantic features of either resultatives or depictives, while the others cannot be clearly judged as resultatives or depictives since they show both kinds of features. The encoding of the secondary predicates also oscillates between the depictive and the resultative marking. Thus the purpose of the paper is to establish the factors which determine different semantic interpretations and different formal marking of the construction. The author follows Holvoet (2008) in assuming that the semantic structure of the constructions depends on the semantic features of the verb. It is proposed that the lexical aspect and the lexical meaning of the verb determine a resultative, a depictive or a “neutralized” (“intermediate”) interpretation of the construction. As the data show, the secondary predicate is usually encoded by an adjective (depictive-like marking), however, sometimes it is expressed by an adverb (resultative-like marking) as well. It is assumed that the choice between the adjective and the adverb is determined by the lexical features of the secondary predicate rather than of the verb. Some of the posture notions seem to be more oriented towards the participant of an event and thus opt to be expressed by an adjective, while others are more oriented towards the event and therefore are encoded by an adverb. It is hypothesized that the reason for the oscillating marking lies in the constructions with a neutralized meaning. The cases which are ambiguous between the depictive and the resultative meaning constitute a precondition for establishing the double marking. This twofold marking is then extended to the constructions which carry clearly the depictive or the resultative meaning.","PeriodicalId":30274,"journal":{"name":"Kalbotyra","volume":"66 1","pages":"99-119"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66942654","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Intertextuality, or the link between two texts, has long been recognized as a very important part of research writing. Citations in particular have attracted much attention both from applied linguists and from bibliometricians. Citation indexes have now become an inseparable part of research evaluation which, in its turn, plays the key role in research funding. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that evaluation based on citation indexes as the main criteria for financing and scientific awards has received a widespread dissatisfaction, primarily because it often fails to take into account the breadth and variety of disciplinary approaches. In order to shed light on citation practices and their suitability for research evaluation, scientists have been approaching citations from both scientometric and linguistic perspectives. Much has been done in the field, including research on self-citation and its impact on citation indexes, a variety of attempts to classify citations, sentiment analysis for citation polarity and automatic citation strength estimation, inter alia. Most of these works, however, are based on data from one discipline or compare two clearly contrasting science areas, such as the so called “hard” and “soft” sciences. There are far less studies that offer an indepth view of how citation works in closer disciplines as well as in research cultures other than English. Based on two PhD dissertations written by Lithuanian young scholars in sociology and cultural studies, this paper analyzes a variety of quantitative and qualitative citation aspects, such as citation density, year of publication and its type, integral/non integral distinction, level of detail, number of citations at one reference point, type & token ratio adapted to citations, the distribution of citations in theoretical and practical parts of the dissertations. The results reveal clear disciplinary differences in the use of citation. The cultural studies dissertation uses more direct quotes than the sociology dissertation, with integral references dominating and thus allowing to place more emphasis on the cited author rather than on the information. Conversely, non-integral referencing prevails in the sociology dissertation with less detailed reference to sources used. Books are the most popular type of reference source in the cultural studies dissertation, while the sociology dissertation relies more on research articles. If automatized, the analytical model adopted in this paper could serve as a fast and useful tool for the initial evaluation of student papers, research articles submitted to research journals, etc. The citation patters of a new work can be matched against prevailing citation trends in the discipline and reveal how adequately the new work is embedded in literature.
{"title":"Dar kartą apie intertekstualumą. Ką jis sako apie mokslinį tekstą? | Intertextuality in research writing revisited","authors":"Rūta Petrauskaitė, Jolanta Šinkūnienė","doi":"10.15388/KLBT.2015.8943","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15388/KLBT.2015.8943","url":null,"abstract":"Intertextuality, or the link between two texts, has long been recognized as a very important part of research writing. Citations in particular have attracted much attention both from applied linguists and from bibliometricians. Citation indexes have now become an inseparable part of research evaluation which, in its turn, plays the key role in research funding. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that evaluation based on citation indexes as the main criteria for financing and scientific awards has received a widespread dissatisfaction, primarily because it often fails to take into account the breadth and variety of disciplinary approaches. In order to shed light on citation practices and their suitability for research evaluation, scientists have been approaching citations from both scientometric and linguistic perspectives. Much has been done in the field, including research on self-citation and its impact on citation indexes, a variety of attempts to classify citations, sentiment analysis for citation polarity and automatic citation strength estimation, inter alia. Most of these works, however, are based on data from one discipline or compare two clearly contrasting science areas, such as the so called “hard” and “soft” sciences. There are far less studies that offer an indepth view of how citation works in closer disciplines as well as in research cultures other than English. Based on two PhD dissertations written by Lithuanian young scholars in sociology and cultural studies, this paper analyzes a variety of quantitative and qualitative citation aspects, such as citation density, year of publication and its type, integral/non integral distinction, level of detail, number of citations at one reference point, type & token ratio adapted to citations, the distribution of citations in theoretical and practical parts of the dissertations. The results reveal clear disciplinary differences in the use of citation. The cultural studies dissertation uses more direct quotes than the sociology dissertation, with integral references dominating and thus allowing to place more emphasis on the cited author rather than on the information. Conversely, non-integral referencing prevails in the sociology dissertation with less detailed reference to sources used. Books are the most popular type of reference source in the cultural studies dissertation, while the sociology dissertation relies more on research articles. If automatized, the analytical model adopted in this paper could serve as a fast and useful tool for the initial evaluation of student papers, research articles submitted to research journals, etc. The citation patters of a new work can be matched against prevailing citation trends in the discipline and reveal how adequately the new work is embedded in literature.","PeriodicalId":30274,"journal":{"name":"Kalbotyra","volume":"1 1","pages":"67-85"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66942344","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
International firms are interested in getting the best possible professionals, those who are able to communicate accurately at the workplace. To help them, the use of authentic materials in the classroom can enhance students’ options to succeed in their prospective working environment. From a genre-based perspective, annual reports can be useful for that purpose, as they offer a real corporate image of the companies, helping students to understand better how firms work. This paper shows a practical implementation of three activities that are carried out among three different groups of students at a Spanish public university to promote their communicative skills. To do so we have followed a multimodal approach, so that our students can experience, conceptualize and apply meaning to a genre (annual report), completing some tasks in which they have to communicate in English the information appearing in those texts. The final pedagogical recommendations enhance the benefits of using authentic materials in the English for business communication classroom. The combination of multimodality and genre-based pedagogy lead students to understand the current meaning construction in professional settings.
{"title":"Authentic materials in the Business English classroom: Annual Reports","authors":"M. Ruiz-Garrido, J. Palmer-Silveira","doi":"10.15388/KLBT.2015.8944","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15388/KLBT.2015.8944","url":null,"abstract":"International firms are interested in getting the best possible professionals, those who are able to communicate accurately at the workplace. To help them, the use of authentic materials in the classroom can enhance students’ options to succeed in their prospective working environment. From a genre-based perspective, annual reports can be useful for that purpose, as they offer a real corporate image of the companies, helping students to understand better how firms work. This paper shows a practical implementation of three activities that are carried out among three different groups of students at a Spanish public university to promote their communicative skills. To do so we have followed a multimodal approach, so that our students can experience, conceptualize and apply meaning to a genre (annual report), completing some tasks in which they have to communicate in English the information appearing in those texts. The final pedagogical recommendations enhance the benefits of using authentic materials in the English for business communication classroom. The combination of multimodality and genre-based pedagogy lead students to understand the current meaning construction in professional settings.","PeriodicalId":30274,"journal":{"name":"Kalbotyra","volume":"67 1","pages":"86-103"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66942389","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper examines different options used by writers in reports and studies to control information from two departments of the European Commission: EU Maritime Affairs and Fisheries and Agriculture and Rural Development, using the web as corpus. These two Directorates or Commissions have the power of initiative, are responsible for policy formulation and policy implementation. Two comparable sub-corpora of reports and studies have been selected from the two Directorates. Fifteen markers related to key areas of root modal expression are presented: modal-evaluative adjectives like essential, necessary, suitable and appropriate (Van linden 2012); the semi- modals (e.g. have to, be able to, be supposed to, need to) (Leech et al. 2009); the emerging modal want to (Verplaetse 2010) and expressions with comparative adverbs (e.g. had better, would rather) (van der Auwera et al. 2013). The study of these markers reveals that shared norms and action in these two EU areas are constantly collectively established. Root modals are one of the rhetorical strategies of legitimization and persuasion used in EU’s political discourse by the different parties involved.
本文考察了作者在报告和研究中使用的不同选择，以控制来自欧盟委员会两个部门的信息:欧盟海洋事务和渔业以及农业和农村发展，使用网络作为语料库。这两个局或委员会具有主动权，负责政策制定和政策实施。从两个执行局中选取了两个可比较的报告和研究分册。提出了与词根情态表达关键领域相关的15个标记:情态评价形容词，如essential、necessary、suitable和appropriate (Van linden 2012);半情态动词(例如:have to, be able to, be supposed to, need to) (Leech et al. 2009);新出现的情态want to (Verplaetse 2010)和带有比较级副词的表达(例如had better, would rather) (van der Auwera et al. 2013)。对这些标志的研究表明，这两个欧盟地区的共同规范和行动是不断集体建立的。词根情态动词是欧盟政治话语中各方运用的一种使之合法化和说服的修辞策略。
{"title":"Verbal and Non-Verbal Markers of Root Modality in EU Maritime Affairs and Fisheries vs. Agriculture and Rural Development Reports and Studies: An Overview","authors":"Silvia Molina-Plaza","doi":"10.15388/KLBT.2015.8942","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15388/KLBT.2015.8942","url":null,"abstract":"This paper examines different options used by writers in reports and studies to control information from two departments of the European Commission: EU Maritime Affairs and Fisheries and Agriculture and Rural Development, using the web as corpus. These two Directorates or Commissions have the power of initiative, are responsible for policy formulation and policy implementation. Two comparable sub-corpora of reports and studies have been selected from the two Directorates. Fifteen markers related to key areas of root modal expression are presented: modal-evaluative adjectives like essential, necessary, suitable and appropriate (Van linden 2012); the semi- modals (e.g. have to, be able to, be supposed to, need to) (Leech et al. 2009); the emerging modal want to (Verplaetse 2010) and expressions with comparative adverbs (e.g. had better, would rather) (van der Auwera et al. 2013). The study of these markers reveals that shared norms and action in these two EU areas are constantly collectively established. Root modals are one of the rhetorical strategies of legitimization and persuasion used in EU’s political discourse by the different parties involved.","PeriodicalId":30274,"journal":{"name":"Kalbotyra","volume":"80 1","pages":"45-66"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66942301","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The present paper deals with the verbs gauti ‘get’ and tekti ‘be gotten’ as a means of acquisitive modality in the 16th–17th century texts of Old Lithuanian. The realizations of acquisitive modality in Old Lithuanian have not been examined yet. Thus, the aim of the paper is to explore the use of the verbs gauti ‘get’ and tekti ‘be gotten’ in the selected Old Lithuanian texts and to discuss the potential direction of the development of their modal meanings. The study of the Old Lithuanian writings shows that both verbs gauti ‘get’ and tekti ‘be gotten’ are most frequently used as non-modal verbs in Old Lithuanian. The verb gauti ‘get’ typically comes in personal constructions, while the verb tekti ‘be gotten’ appears in impersonal as well as personal constructions. The Lithuanian verbs under consideration denote acquisition in the constructional patterns with NP as their grammatical object. However, the thorough analysis of the verbs in the selected texts also reveals evidence of their modal use. The modal meanings of the verbs under study are prominent in constructions with an infinitival complement. Both acquisitive verbs allow modal readings with transitive as well as intransitive verb complements. Gauti ‘get’ functions as a modal verb more frequently than tekti ‘be gotten’. The few modal instances of the latter have been found only in non-original texts. Moreover, the verb tekti ‘be gotten’ can express participant-external modality only (possibility or necessity). However, since the examples of modal tekti ‘be gotten’ come from the translations from Polish, the influence of the source language should not be overlooked. In contrast, the verb gauti ‘get’ functions as a modal verb in both original and non-original Lithuanian texts, and it expresses actualized possibility, participant-internal and participant-external possibility. It was noticed that the participant-external use is more frequent than the participant-internal one. Since in Contemporary Lithuanian gauti ‘get’ is specialized for expressing participant-external modality, we may assume that participant-internal possibility might have disappeared over time. It is also worth to note that in the texts under analysis gauti ‘get’ does not display the modal meaning of necessity, which is a frequent use of the verb in Contemporary Lithuanian. Thus, its meaning of modal necessity may have developed later than the meaning of possibility. Moreover, it has been observed that gauti ‘get’ typically occurs as a modal verb in the texts published in Minor Lithuania.
本文研究了16 - 17世纪古立陶宛语文本中动词gauti“得到”和tekti“得到”作为取得情态的一种手段。在旧立陶宛语中取得情态的实现尚未得到审查。因此，本文的目的是探讨动词gauti“get”和tekti“be gotten”在选定的古立陶宛文本中的使用情况，并讨论它们的情态意义发展的潜在方向。对古立陶宛文字的研究表明，动词gauti“get”和tekti“be gotten”是古立陶宛语中最常用的非情态动词。动词gauti“get”通常出现在人称结构中，而动词tekti“be gotten”出现在人称结构和非人称结构中。所研究的立陶宛语动词表示以NP为语法宾语的结构模式中的习得。然而，对所选文本中动词的深入分析也揭示了它们情态使用的证据。所研究的动词的情态意义在带有不定式补语的结构中是突出的。两种取得性动词都允许带及物动词和不及物动词补语的情态阅读。Gauti ' get '作为情态动词的频率高于tekti ' be gotten '。后者的少数模态实例只在非原始文本中发现。此外，动词tekti“be gotten”只能表达参与者的外部情态(可能性或必然性)。然而，由于情态动词“be gotten”的例子来自波兰语的翻译，源语言的影响不应被忽视。相比之下，谓语动词“get”在立陶宛语原文和非原文中都是情态动词，它表达了实现的可能性，参与者内部的可能性和参与者外部的可能性。参与者-外部使用频率高于参与者-内部使用频率。由于在当代立陶宛高蒂语中，“get”专门用于表达参与者-外部情态，我们可以假设参与者-内部的可能性可能随着时间的推移而消失。同样值得注意的是，在分析的文本中，gauti ' get '没有显示必然性的情态意义，这是当代立陶宛语中动词的频繁使用。因此，它的模态必然性的意义可能比可能性的意义发展得晚。此外，人们还观察到，在小立陶宛出版的文本中，高蒂语“get”通常作为情态动词出现。
{"title":"Akvizityviniai veiksmažodžiai gauti ir tekti senuosiuose XVI–XVII a. lietuvių kalbos raštuose | Acquisitive verbs gauti ‘get’ and tekti ‘be gotten’ in the 16th–17th century texts of Old Lithuanian","authors":"Erika Jasionytė-Mikučionienė","doi":"10.15388/Klbt.2015.8941","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15388/Klbt.2015.8941","url":null,"abstract":"The present paper deals with the verbs gauti ‘get’ and tekti ‘be gotten’ as a means of acquisitive modality in the 16th–17th century texts of Old Lithuanian. The realizations of acquisitive modality in Old Lithuanian have not been examined yet. Thus, the aim of the paper is to explore the use of the verbs gauti ‘get’ and tekti ‘be gotten’ in the selected Old Lithuanian texts and to discuss the potential direction of the development of their modal meanings. The study of the Old Lithuanian writings shows that both verbs gauti ‘get’ and tekti ‘be gotten’ are most frequently used as non-modal verbs in Old Lithuanian. The verb gauti ‘get’ typically comes in personal constructions, while the verb tekti ‘be gotten’ appears in impersonal as well as personal constructions. The Lithuanian verbs under consideration denote acquisition in the constructional patterns with NP as their grammatical object. However, the thorough analysis of the verbs in the selected texts also reveals evidence of their modal use. The modal meanings of the verbs under study are prominent in constructions with an infinitival complement. Both acquisitive verbs allow modal readings with transitive as well as intransitive verb complements. Gauti ‘get’ functions as a modal verb more frequently than tekti ‘be gotten’. The few modal instances of the latter have been found only in non-original texts. Moreover, the verb tekti ‘be gotten’ can express participant-external modality only (possibility or necessity). However, since the examples of modal tekti ‘be gotten’ come from the translations from Polish, the influence of the source language should not be overlooked. In contrast, the verb gauti ‘get’ functions as a modal verb in both original and non-original Lithuanian texts, and it expresses actualized possibility, participant-internal and participant-external possibility. It was noticed that the participant-external use is more frequent than the participant-internal one. Since in Contemporary Lithuanian gauti ‘get’ is specialized for expressing participant-external modality, we may assume that participant-internal possibility might have disappeared over time. It is also worth to note that in the texts under analysis gauti ‘get’ does not display the modal meaning of necessity, which is a frequent use of the verb in Contemporary Lithuanian. Thus, its meaning of modal necessity may have developed later than the meaning of possibility. Moreover, it has been observed that gauti ‘get’ typically occurs as a modal verb in the texts published in Minor Lithuania.","PeriodicalId":30274,"journal":{"name":"Kalbotyra","volume":"67 1","pages":"24-44"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66942288","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The present study examines the functional distribution of the adverbials akivaizdžiai ‘evidently’, aiskiai ‘clearly’, ryskiai ‘visibly/clearly’, tariamai ‘allegedly/supposedly’ and aisku ‘clearly/of course’ in Lithuanian fiction and academic discourse. The aim of the study is to identify the evidential and/or pragmatic functions of perception and communication-based adverbials which can be traced synchronically to different syntactic environment (a predication manner adverbial and a CTP clause). The paper examines the frequency of these adverbials, their position, scope, functions, co-occurrence with argumentative markers, word class (adverb or non-agreeing adjective) and the type of discourse they occur in. The research is conducted by applying a corpus-based methodology and the data are obtained from the Corpus of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language, namely from the subcorpus of fiction, and the Corpus of Academic Lithuanian. The perception-based adverbials akivaizdžiai ‘evidently’, aiskiai ‘clearly’, ryskiai ‘clearly/visibly’ and aisku ‘clearly/of course’ denote inferences drawn from perceptual and conceptual evidence and contribute to persuasive authorial argumentation, while the communication-based adverbial tariamai ‘allegedly/supposedly’ functions as a hearsay marker. The latter may also be used as an epistemic marker which refers to unreal or imagined situations. In contexts of common knowledge, the adverbial aisku ‘clearly/of course’ acquires interactional and textual functions and thus reveals traces of pragmaticalisation. In academic discourse, it signals interaction with the addressee and links units of discourse, while in fiction it functions as a speech act modifier in a variety of emotive contexts. The pragmaticalisation of aisku ‘clearly/of course’ is also marked by its high frequency, positional mobility (initial, medial, final) and scopal variability (clausal, phrasal). Alongside its discrete evidential and pragmatic functions, the adverbial aisku ‘clearly/of course’ displays the merger of the two functions. The adverbials akivaizdžiai ‘evidently’, aiskiai ‘clearly’, ryskiai ‘visibly/clearly’ and tariamai ‘allegedly/supposedly’ do not acquire a pragmatic function, which is indicated by their frequency and position. The results of the present study corroborate the findings of previous studies that common sources of evidential adverbials and pragmatic markers in Lithuanian are verb-based, adjective-based and noun-based CTP clauses.
{"title":"Evidential adverbials in Lithuanian: a corpus-based study","authors":"Anna Ruskan","doi":"10.15388/KLBT.2015.8945","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15388/KLBT.2015.8945","url":null,"abstract":"The present study examines the functional distribution of the adverbials akivaizdžiai ‘evidently’, aiskiai ‘clearly’, ryskiai ‘visibly/clearly’, tariamai ‘allegedly/supposedly’ and aisku ‘clearly/of course’ in Lithuanian fiction and academic discourse. The aim of the study is to identify the evidential and/or pragmatic functions of perception and communication-based adverbials which can be traced synchronically to different syntactic environment (a predication manner adverbial and a CTP clause). The paper examines the frequency of these adverbials, their position, scope, functions, co-occurrence with argumentative markers, word class (adverb or non-agreeing adjective) and the type of discourse they occur in. The research is conducted by applying a corpus-based methodology and the data are obtained from the Corpus of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language, namely from the subcorpus of fiction, and the Corpus of Academic Lithuanian. The perception-based adverbials akivaizdžiai ‘evidently’, aiskiai ‘clearly’, ryskiai ‘clearly/visibly’ and aisku ‘clearly/of course’ denote inferences drawn from perceptual and conceptual evidence and contribute to persuasive authorial argumentation, while the communication-based adverbial tariamai ‘allegedly/supposedly’ functions as a hearsay marker. The latter may also be used as an epistemic marker which refers to unreal or imagined situations. In contexts of common knowledge, the adverbial aisku ‘clearly/of course’ acquires interactional and textual functions and thus reveals traces of pragmaticalisation. In academic discourse, it signals interaction with the addressee and links units of discourse, while in fiction it functions as a speech act modifier in a variety of emotive contexts. The pragmaticalisation of aisku ‘clearly/of course’ is also marked by its high frequency, positional mobility (initial, medial, final) and scopal variability (clausal, phrasal). Alongside its discrete evidential and pragmatic functions, the adverbial aisku ‘clearly/of course’ displays the merger of the two functions. The adverbials akivaizdžiai ‘evidently’, aiskiai ‘clearly’, ryskiai ‘visibly/clearly’ and tariamai ‘allegedly/supposedly’ do not acquire a pragmatic function, which is indicated by their frequency and position. The results of the present study corroborate the findings of previous studies that common sources of evidential adverbials and pragmatic markers in Lithuanian are verb-based, adjective-based and noun-based CTP clauses.","PeriodicalId":30274,"journal":{"name":"Kalbotyra","volume":"67 1","pages":"104-130"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66942407","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Straipsnyje aptariamas modalinių veiksmažodžių should ir turėti kiekybinis pasiskirstymas humanitarinių ir (bio)medicinos mokslo sricių tekstuose lietuvių ir anglų kalbomis ir sių veiksmažodžių atliekamos funkcijos, kai jie vartojami neepistemine reiksme. Analizei naudojamas Siuolaikinės amerikiecių anglų kalbos tekstynas (COCA) ir Lietuvių mokslo kalbos tekstynas CorALit. Kiekybinės analizės rezultatai rodo, kad turėti yra vienodai dažnas abiejose mokslo srityse, jose taip pat vyrauja teigiamos turėti formos. Humanitarinių mokslų tekstuose posesyvinis ir modalinis turėti pasiskirsto maždaug tolygiai, biomedicinos mokslų diskurse dažnesnė posesyvinė turėti vartosena. Abiejose mokslo srityse dažniausiai vartojama turėti forma yra treciojo asmens. Anglakalbių autorių mokslo kalboje should dažniau renkasi medicinos srities mokslininkai, nei humanitarai. Analizuojamų veiksmažodžių dažnio palyginimas su must ir privalėti kiekybine vartosena rodo, kad must vartojamas beveik vienodai dažnai kaip ir should humanitarų tekstuose, taciau ženkliai reciau medicinos srities tekstuose, kur dominuoja should. Tai gali būti siejama su dažna rekomendacine should atliekama funkcija medikų moksliniame diskurse. Lietuvių mokslo kalboje privalėti yra beveik nevartojamas. Kokybinė neepisteminių should ir turėti vartosenos atvejų analizė atskleidė keturis should ir turėti funkcinius tipus: abu veiksmažodžiai gali būti panaudojami reiksti moralinį į(si)-pareigojimą, teikti rekomendacijas, duoti instrukcijas, ir organizuoti diskursą.
{"title":"Neepisteminis modalumas lietuvių ir anglų mokslo kalboje: kiekybiniai ir kokybiniai vartosenos ypatumai | Nonepistemic modality in English and Lithuanian academic discourse: quantitative and qualitative perspectives","authors":"Jolanta Šinkūnienė","doi":"10.15388/KLBT.2015.8946","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15388/KLBT.2015.8946","url":null,"abstract":"Straipsnyje aptariamas modalinių veiksmažodžių should ir turėti kiekybinis pasiskirstymas humanitarinių ir (bio)medicinos mokslo sricių tekstuose lietuvių ir anglų kalbomis ir sių veiksmažodžių atliekamos funkcijos, kai jie vartojami neepistemine reiksme. Analizei naudojamas Siuolaikinės amerikiecių anglų kalbos tekstynas (COCA) ir Lietuvių mokslo kalbos tekstynas CorALit. Kiekybinės analizės rezultatai rodo, kad turėti yra vienodai dažnas abiejose mokslo srityse, jose taip pat vyrauja teigiamos turėti formos. Humanitarinių mokslų tekstuose posesyvinis ir modalinis turėti pasiskirsto maždaug tolygiai, biomedicinos mokslų diskurse dažnesnė posesyvinė turėti vartosena. Abiejose mokslo srityse dažniausiai vartojama turėti forma yra treciojo asmens. Anglakalbių autorių mokslo kalboje should dažniau renkasi medicinos srities mokslininkai, nei humanitarai. Analizuojamų veiksmažodžių dažnio palyginimas su must ir privalėti kiekybine vartosena rodo, kad must vartojamas beveik vienodai dažnai kaip ir should humanitarų tekstuose, taciau ženkliai reciau medicinos srities tekstuose, kur dominuoja should. Tai gali būti siejama su dažna rekomendacine should atliekama funkcija medikų moksliniame diskurse. Lietuvių mokslo kalboje privalėti yra beveik nevartojamas. Kokybinė neepisteminių should ir turėti vartosenos atvejų analizė atskleidė keturis should ir turėti funkcinius tipus: abu veiksmažodžiai gali būti panaudojami reiksti moralinį į(si)-pareigojimą, teikti rekomendacijas, duoti instrukcijas, ir organizuoti diskursą.","PeriodicalId":30274,"journal":{"name":"Kalbotyra","volume":"67 1","pages":"131-154"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66942446","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Straipsnyje nagrinėjama lietuvių kalbos adverbialų gal ir galbūt kiekybinė ir kokybinė distribucija skirtinguose diskurso tipuose (snekamoji kalba, grožinė literatūra, akademinė kalba). Tyrimo tikslas yra aptarti lietuvių kalbos adverbialų gal ir galbūt ir jų atitikmenų anglų kalboje multifunkcionalumo aspektus. Straipsnyje pateikiama kiekybinė ir kokybinė sių adverbialų analizė. Sių lietuvių kalbos adverbialų vartosena dar iki siol nebuvo aptarta pasitelkiant įvairių tekstynų teikiamomis galimybėmis. Tyrimas remiasi tekstynų inspiruota metodologija – empirinė medžiaga yra paimta is dvikrypcio lygiagreciojo tekstyno ParaCorpEN→LT→EN, Lietuvių mokslo kalbos tekstyno CorALit ir is Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos tekstyno. Kiekybinė analizė atskleidžia, kad gal dominuoja visuose diskurso tipuose. Sis adverbialas vartojamas dvigubai dažniau nei galbūt. Tirti adverbialai gana dažnai figūruoja grožinės literatūros tekstuose, taciau prototipinė jų vartosena yra būdinga snekamajai kalbai. Tuo tarpu akademiniuose tekstuose gal ir galbūt nėra dažni ir vartojami panasiai: jų vartosenos dažnis beveik sutampa. Tai galėtų rodyti, kad mokslinių tekstų autoriai pasitelkia kitas lingvistines priemones savo kaip autorių požiūriui reiksti, yra linke prisiimti atsakomybe už savo teiginių teisingumą ir retai jais abejoja. Atlikta sių adverbialų kokybinė ir kiekybinė analizė parodė, kad jie yra įvairialypiai ir gali atlikti keletą funkcijų. Prototipiskai jie kvalifikuoja propoziciją episteminiu aspektu, taciau be sios funkcijos gali atlikti ir keletą kitų: aproksimatoriaus, sąsvelnio, klausiamosios dalelytės ir nefaktiskumo žymiklių episteminuose sąrasuose (angl. epistemic lists). Akivaizdu, kad gal yra funkciskai lankstesnis nei galbūt: pastarasis adverbialas nebuvo vartojamas kaip klausiamoji dalelytė. Taciau svarbu pažymėti, kad abu adverbialai be savo prototipinės episteminės reiksmės įvairiuose diskursuose įgyja ir kitų, su autoriaus požiūriu nesiejamų, funkcijų ir yra linke pragmatiskėti.
{"title":"Multifunctionality of modal markers:Lithuanian epistemic adverbials gal and galbūt ‘perhaps/maybe’ vs. their translational correspondences","authors":"Audronė Šolienė","doi":"10.15388/KLBT.2015.8947","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15388/KLBT.2015.8947","url":null,"abstract":"Straipsnyje nagrinėjama lietuvių kalbos adverbialų gal ir galbūt kiekybinė ir kokybinė distribucija skirtinguose diskurso tipuose (snekamoji kalba, grožinė literatūra, akademinė kalba). Tyrimo tikslas yra aptarti lietuvių kalbos adverbialų gal ir galbūt ir jų atitikmenų anglų kalboje multifunkcionalumo aspektus. Straipsnyje pateikiama kiekybinė ir kokybinė sių adverbialų analizė. Sių lietuvių kalbos adverbialų vartosena dar iki siol nebuvo aptarta pasitelkiant įvairių tekstynų teikiamomis galimybėmis. Tyrimas remiasi tekstynų inspiruota metodologija – empirinė medžiaga yra paimta is dvikrypcio lygiagreciojo tekstyno ParaCorpEN→LT→EN, Lietuvių mokslo kalbos tekstyno CorALit ir is Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos tekstyno. Kiekybinė analizė atskleidžia, kad gal dominuoja visuose diskurso tipuose. Sis adverbialas vartojamas dvigubai dažniau nei galbūt. Tirti adverbialai gana dažnai figūruoja grožinės literatūros tekstuose, taciau prototipinė jų vartosena yra būdinga snekamajai kalbai. Tuo tarpu akademiniuose tekstuose gal ir galbūt nėra dažni ir vartojami panasiai: jų vartosenos dažnis beveik sutampa. Tai galėtų rodyti, kad mokslinių tekstų autoriai pasitelkia kitas lingvistines priemones savo kaip autorių požiūriui reiksti, yra linke prisiimti atsakomybe už savo teiginių teisingumą ir retai jais abejoja. Atlikta sių adverbialų kokybinė ir kiekybinė analizė parodė, kad jie yra įvairialypiai ir gali atlikti keletą funkcijų. Prototipiskai jie kvalifikuoja propoziciją episteminiu aspektu, taciau be sios funkcijos gali atlikti ir keletą kitų: aproksimatoriaus, sąsvelnio, klausiamosios dalelytės ir nefaktiskumo žymiklių episteminuose sąrasuose (angl. epistemic lists). Akivaizdu, kad gal yra funkciskai lankstesnis nei galbūt: pastarasis adverbialas nebuvo vartojamas kaip klausiamoji dalelytė. Taciau svarbu pažymėti, kad abu adverbialai be savo prototipinės episteminės reiksmės įvairiuose diskursuose įgyja ir kitų, su autoriaus požiūriu nesiejamų, funkcijų ir yra linke pragmatiskėti.","PeriodicalId":30274,"journal":{"name":"Kalbotyra","volume":"67 1","pages":"155-176"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66942507","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：