我不禁想知道:情态动词和否定相吸引吗?

IF 1 2区 文学 N/A LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory Pub Date : 2023-11-15 DOI:10.1515/cllt-2023-0029
Ulrike Schneider
{"title":"我不禁想知道:情态动词和否定相吸引吗?","authors":"Ulrike Schneider","doi":"10.1515/cllt-2023-0029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The present paper focusses on the historical development of the relationship between the English core modals <jats:italic>can, could, shall, should, will, would, may, might</jats:italic> and <jats:italic>must</jats:italic> and the negator <jats:italic>not</jats:italic>. It explores whether semantic and morphosyntactic factors, particularly the emergence of <jats:sc>do</jats:sc>-support in Early Modern English, the increase in the popularity of contracted forms such as <jats:italic>won’t</jats:italic> in the nineteenth century and the loss of core modals in the twentieth century, had an influence on negation rates. Large-scale empirical analyses of modal use in historical corpora of British prose fiction published between ca. 1500 and 1990 reveal that many modals—particularly high-frequency <jats:italic>will, would, can</jats:italic> and <jats:italic>could</jats:italic>—indeed attract <jats:italic>not</jats:italic>. The establishment of the contractions <jats:italic>n’t, ’ll</jats:italic> and <jats:italic>’d</jats:italic> had the strongest effect on the modal-negation system after 1500. The availability of the contracted modals <jats:italic>’ll</jats:italic> and <jats:italic>’d</jats:italic> led to a functional split whereby <jats:italic>will</jats:italic> and <jats:italic>would</jats:italic> became much more strongly associated with negation while contracted <jats:italic>’ll</jats:italic> and <jats:italic>’d</jats:italic> repel <jats:italic>not</jats:italic>-negation.","PeriodicalId":45605,"journal":{"name":"Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"I couldn’t help but wonder: do modals and negation attract?\",\"authors\":\"Ulrike Schneider\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/cllt-2023-0029\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The present paper focusses on the historical development of the relationship between the English core modals <jats:italic>can, could, shall, should, will, would, may, might</jats:italic> and <jats:italic>must</jats:italic> and the negator <jats:italic>not</jats:italic>. It explores whether semantic and morphosyntactic factors, particularly the emergence of <jats:sc>do</jats:sc>-support in Early Modern English, the increase in the popularity of contracted forms such as <jats:italic>won’t</jats:italic> in the nineteenth century and the loss of core modals in the twentieth century, had an influence on negation rates. Large-scale empirical analyses of modal use in historical corpora of British prose fiction published between ca. 1500 and 1990 reveal that many modals—particularly high-frequency <jats:italic>will, would, can</jats:italic> and <jats:italic>could</jats:italic>—indeed attract <jats:italic>not</jats:italic>. The establishment of the contractions <jats:italic>n’t, ’ll</jats:italic> and <jats:italic>’d</jats:italic> had the strongest effect on the modal-negation system after 1500. The availability of the contracted modals <jats:italic>’ll</jats:italic> and <jats:italic>’d</jats:italic> led to a functional split whereby <jats:italic>will</jats:italic> and <jats:italic>would</jats:italic> became much more strongly associated with negation while contracted <jats:italic>’ll</jats:italic> and <jats:italic>’d</jats:italic> repel <jats:italic>not</jats:italic>-negation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45605,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2023-0029\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"N/A\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2023-0029","RegionNum":2,"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: 0

摘要

本文主要研究了英语核心情态can, could, shall, should, will, would, may, might和must与否定词not之间关系的历史发展。它探讨了语义和形态句法因素是否对否定率有影响,特别是早期现代英语中do-support的出现,19世纪诸如won 't等缩写形式的流行以及20世纪核心情态的丧失。对1500年至1990年间出版的英国散文小说历史语料库中情态使用的大规模实证分析表明,许多情态——尤其是高频的will, would, can和could——确实不吸引人。1500年以后,缩略词“n”、“l”和“d”的建立对情态否定系统的影响最大。简约情态动词" ll "和" d "的出现导致了功能分裂,意志和意愿与否定的联系更加紧密,而简约的" ll "和" d "排斥非否定。
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
I couldn’t help but wonder: do modals and negation attract?
The present paper focusses on the historical development of the relationship between the English core modals can, could, shall, should, will, would, may, might and must and the negator not. It explores whether semantic and morphosyntactic factors, particularly the emergence of do-support in Early Modern English, the increase in the popularity of contracted forms such as won’t in the nineteenth century and the loss of core modals in the twentieth century, had an influence on negation rates. Large-scale empirical analyses of modal use in historical corpora of British prose fiction published between ca. 1500 and 1990 reveal that many modals—particularly high-frequency will, would, can and could—indeed attract not. The establishment of the contractions n’t, ’ll and ’d had the strongest effect on the modal-negation system after 1500. The availability of the contracted modals ’ll and ’d led to a functional split whereby will and would became much more strongly associated with negation while contracted ’ll and ’d repel not-negation.
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
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
12.50%
发文量
15
期刊介绍: Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory (CLLT) is a peer-reviewed journal publishing high-quality original corpus-based research focusing on theoretically relevant issues in all core areas of linguistic research, or other recognized topic areas. It provides a forum for researchers from different theoretical backgrounds and different areas of interest that share a commitment to the systematic and exhaustive analysis of naturally occurring language. Contributions from all theoretical frameworks are welcome but they should be addressed at a general audience and thus be explicit about their assumptions and discovery procedures and provide sufficient theoretical background to be accessible to researchers from different frameworks. Topics Corpus Linguistics Quantitative Linguistics Phonology Morphology Semantics Syntax Pragmatics.
期刊最新文献
The red dress is cute: why subjective adjectives are more often predicative A corpus-based study on semantic and cognitive features of bei sentences in Mandarin Chinese Verb influence on French wh-placement: a parallel corpus study Idiosyncratic entrenchment: tracing change in constructional schematicity with nested random effects A radically usage-based, collostructional approach to assessing the differences between negative modal contractions and their parent forms
×
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