朝鲜语、蒙古语、维吾尔语、满语、阿塞拜疆语等语言中“知道”态度的作事性变化及内容从句名词性

Chungmin Lee
{"title":"朝鲜语、蒙古语、维吾尔语、满语、阿塞拜疆语等语言中“知道”态度的作事性变化及内容从句名词性","authors":"Chungmin Lee","doi":"10.17791/jcs.2019.20.4.451","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"It was discovered in the literature (Lee 1978, 1999; Kiefer 1978, Őzyildiz 2017, Lee 2017) that the epistemic attitude report ‘know’ in Korean, Turkish, and Hungarian reveal factivity alternation and this rare phenomenon has been recently investigated also in such Altaic languages as Mongolian, Uyghur, Manchurian, and Azerbaijan, as first reported here. The attitude report ‘know’ in most languages so far known typically selects for a factive complement (Kiparsky and Kiparsky 1970, Hintikka 1975 a.o.). One generalization made is that nominalized complements tend to convey a factive reading, while non-nominal ones tend not to (Kastner 2015, Moulton 2015 a.o.). This work demonstrates that for a clause selected by a cognitive epistemic attitude verb to have a factive reading, it bears a nominal (D) feature with a structural case, whereas a clause for a non-factive reading, it does not, in alternation languages and possibly beyond. This work shows that a nominalized clause with the internal type ‘pro-fact’ noun -(u)n kes in Korean (and in Japanese as well with koto), witness-based, is factively presupposed by itself and contradicted if predicated by negated veracious adjectives in a veridicality test. It is embedded also by a doxastic verb such as mit- ‘believe.’ The non-factive alternants of ‘know’ in all the languages logically belong to the doxastic category of ‘believe’, though with implication of evidential justification in distinction with the real ‘believe,’ undergoing neg-raising, revealing their anti-rogativity. Thus, more weight is given to complements typing than to attitude reports typing.","PeriodicalId":135438,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Cognitive Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Factivity Alternation of Attitude ‘know’ in Korean, Mongolian, Uyghur, Manchu, Azeri, etc. and Content Clausal Nominals\",\"authors\":\"Chungmin Lee\",\"doi\":\"10.17791/jcs.2019.20.4.451\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"It was discovered in the literature (Lee 1978, 1999; Kiefer 1978, Őzyildiz 2017, Lee 2017) that the epistemic attitude report ‘know’ in Korean, Turkish, and Hungarian reveal factivity alternation and this rare phenomenon has been recently investigated also in such Altaic languages as Mongolian, Uyghur, Manchurian, and Azerbaijan, as first reported here. The attitude report ‘know’ in most languages so far known typically selects for a factive complement (Kiparsky and Kiparsky 1970, Hintikka 1975 a.o.). One generalization made is that nominalized complements tend to convey a factive reading, while non-nominal ones tend not to (Kastner 2015, Moulton 2015 a.o.). This work demonstrates that for a clause selected by a cognitive epistemic attitude verb to have a factive reading, it bears a nominal (D) feature with a structural case, whereas a clause for a non-factive reading, it does not, in alternation languages and possibly beyond. This work shows that a nominalized clause with the internal type ‘pro-fact’ noun -(u)n kes in Korean (and in Japanese as well with koto), witness-based, is factively presupposed by itself and contradicted if predicated by negated veracious adjectives in a veridicality test. It is embedded also by a doxastic verb such as mit- ‘believe.’ The non-factive alternants of ‘know’ in all the languages logically belong to the doxastic category of ‘believe’, though with implication of evidential justification in distinction with the real ‘believe,’ undergoing neg-raising, revealing their anti-rogativity. Thus, more weight is given to complements typing than to attitude reports typing.\",\"PeriodicalId\":135438,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Journal of Cognitive Science\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Journal of Cognitive Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17791/jcs.2019.20.4.451\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Cognitive Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17791/jcs.2019.20.4.451","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

它是在文献中发现的(Lee 1978, 1999;Kiefer 1978, Őzyildiz 2017, Lee 2017),韩语、土耳其语和匈牙利语的认知态度报告“知道”揭示了活动交替,最近在阿尔泰语系如蒙古语、维吾尔语、满洲语和阿塞拜疆语中也对这种罕见现象进行了调查,如本文首次报道的那样。到目前为止,大多数语言中的态度报告“知道”通常会选择一个实际的补语(Kiparsky and Kiparsky 1970, Hintikka 1975 a.o)。一个概括是,名词性补语倾向于传达一种积极的阅读,而非名词性补语往往不这样做(Kastner 2015, Moulton 2015 a.o)。这项工作表明,对于由认知认知态度动词选择的具有主动阅读的子句,它具有具有结构格的名义(D)特征,而对于非主动阅读的子句,它在替代语言中甚至可能在其他语言中都没有。这项工作表明,在韩国语(以及日语和koto)中,一个内部类型为“事实”名词的名词化从句(u)n kes,基于证人,在真实性测试中,它本身是主动预设的,如果被否定的真实形容词谓语,则与之相矛盾。它还包含一个动词,如mit- ' believe '。在所有语言中,“知道”的非主动替代词在逻辑上都属于“相信”的否定范畴,尽管与真实的“相信”不同,它们隐含着证据证明的含义,经历了否定性的提升,揭示了它们的反否定性。因此,补语打字比态度报告打字更重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Factivity Alternation of Attitude ‘know’ in Korean, Mongolian, Uyghur, Manchu, Azeri, etc. and Content Clausal Nominals
It was discovered in the literature (Lee 1978, 1999; Kiefer 1978, Őzyildiz 2017, Lee 2017) that the epistemic attitude report ‘know’ in Korean, Turkish, and Hungarian reveal factivity alternation and this rare phenomenon has been recently investigated also in such Altaic languages as Mongolian, Uyghur, Manchurian, and Azerbaijan, as first reported here. The attitude report ‘know’ in most languages so far known typically selects for a factive complement (Kiparsky and Kiparsky 1970, Hintikka 1975 a.o.). One generalization made is that nominalized complements tend to convey a factive reading, while non-nominal ones tend not to (Kastner 2015, Moulton 2015 a.o.). This work demonstrates that for a clause selected by a cognitive epistemic attitude verb to have a factive reading, it bears a nominal (D) feature with a structural case, whereas a clause for a non-factive reading, it does not, in alternation languages and possibly beyond. This work shows that a nominalized clause with the internal type ‘pro-fact’ noun -(u)n kes in Korean (and in Japanese as well with koto), witness-based, is factively presupposed by itself and contradicted if predicated by negated veracious adjectives in a veridicality test. It is embedded also by a doxastic verb such as mit- ‘believe.’ The non-factive alternants of ‘know’ in all the languages logically belong to the doxastic category of ‘believe’, though with implication of evidential justification in distinction with the real ‘believe,’ undergoing neg-raising, revealing their anti-rogativity. Thus, more weight is given to complements typing than to attitude reports typing.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Wraths of Fire: Contagion Heuristic and Intuitive Personification Processes in Early Modern Finnish-Karelian Conceptions of Illness Peering into the Minds of Gods: What Cross-Cultural Variation in Gods’ Concerns Can Tell Us about the Evolution of Religion Transcranial magnetic stimulation in cognitive neuroscience: Methodological basis and safety Effect of Speaker’s Fatigue on Features of Spoken Discourse Adaptation of the Aphasia Bedside Check for Russian
×
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