{"title":"心理动词及其论据","authors":"Daria Seres, M. Espinal","doi":"10.7557/1.7.1.4404","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper it is argued that objects of subject experiencer psychological verbs do not have kind reference, but rather refer to individual object entities: specific individuals, generic plurals, and even entity correlates of a property. We argue that objects of transitive subject experiencer psychological verbs must refer to atoms or sums of atoms, because they presuppose the existence of the Target-of-Emotion. Focusing mainly on data from various Romance languages and Russian, we also argue that the Target-of-emotion of psychological verbs such as odiar ‘hate’ cannot refer to a kind entity, conceived as an abstract individual or an abstract sortal concept, but instead can refer to a maximal sum of individual entities, instantiated through a generic plural.","PeriodicalId":230880,"journal":{"name":"Borealis: An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-05-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Psychological verbs and their arguments\",\"authors\":\"Daria Seres, M. Espinal\",\"doi\":\"10.7557/1.7.1.4404\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this paper it is argued that objects of subject experiencer psychological verbs do not have kind reference, but rather refer to individual object entities: specific individuals, generic plurals, and even entity correlates of a property. We argue that objects of transitive subject experiencer psychological verbs must refer to atoms or sums of atoms, because they presuppose the existence of the Target-of-Emotion. Focusing mainly on data from various Romance languages and Russian, we also argue that the Target-of-emotion of psychological verbs such as odiar ‘hate’ cannot refer to a kind entity, conceived as an abstract individual or an abstract sortal concept, but instead can refer to a maximal sum of individual entities, instantiated through a generic plural.\",\"PeriodicalId\":230880,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Borealis: An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-05-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Borealis: An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7557/1.7.1.4404\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Borealis: An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7557/1.7.1.4404","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3
摘要
本文认为,主语体验心理动词的宾语不具有类指称,而是指向单个的宾语实体:具体的个体、一般的复数,甚至是一个属性的实体关联。我们认为及物主语体验心理动词的宾语必须指原子或原子的总和,因为它们预设了情感目标的存在。主要关注来自各种罗曼语和俄语的数据,我们还认为,心理动词(如odiar ' hate ')的情感目标不能指一种实体,被认为是抽象的个体或抽象的分类概念,而是指个体实体的最大总和,通过一般复数实例化。
In this paper it is argued that objects of subject experiencer psychological verbs do not have kind reference, but rather refer to individual object entities: specific individuals, generic plurals, and even entity correlates of a property. We argue that objects of transitive subject experiencer psychological verbs must refer to atoms or sums of atoms, because they presuppose the existence of the Target-of-Emotion. Focusing mainly on data from various Romance languages and Russian, we also argue that the Target-of-emotion of psychological verbs such as odiar ‘hate’ cannot refer to a kind entity, conceived as an abstract individual or an abstract sortal concept, but instead can refer to a maximal sum of individual entities, instantiated through a generic plural.