马尔扎恩德语中wh-问句的语用问题

IF 1.8 1区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS Journal of Pragmatics Pub Date : 2024-09-12 DOI:10.1016/j.pragma.2024.08.003
Hans-Martin Gärtner , Andreas Pankau
{"title":"马尔扎恩德语中wh-问句的语用问题","authors":"Hans-Martin Gärtner ,&nbsp;Andreas Pankau","doi":"10.1016/j.pragma.2024.08.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The following paper deals with the division of pragmatic labor between two types of <em>wh</em>-interrogatives in Marzahn German (MG). Use of the first type, marked by the enclitic particle <em>n</em> ([<em>n</em>-<span>int</span>]), is near obligatory for and confined to canonical, i.e., information-seeking question acts. The second type, lacking <em>n</em> ([∅-<span>int</span>]), has to be employed in non-canonical questions, such as rhetorical ones. This pattern of apparent markedness-reversal challenges the pretense-based approach to exam questions by Plunze and Zimmermann (2006) (Section 2) and plausibilizes an approach to information-seeking questions in terms of social cost in the sense of Levinson (2012) (Section 3.1). Overall empirical evidence, however, favors an account of <em>n</em>-marking as reinforcement of question act defaults in line with Farkas (2022) (Section 3.2). Section 5 offers a formulation of reinforcement in terms of the \"table model\" of discourse (Farkas 2022), such that the peculiar status of MG [<em>n</em>-<span>int</span>] follows from the prohibition of contextually overriding \"basic conventional discourse effects\".</p><p>In the course of the above discussion, we will scrutinize different notions of interrogative sentential force (Sections 1, 2, 5), illustrate the form and workings of several types of non-canonical questions (guess, rhetorical, echo etc.), and analyze question use in the light of institutional settings and interpersonal effects (3.3).</p></div>","PeriodicalId":16899,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pragmatics","volume":"232 ","pages":"Pages 102-116"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378216624001541/pdfft?md5=e0cd30aca0b2009c0b9ceca97613857a&pid=1-s2.0-S0378216624001541-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pragmatic aspects of wh-interrogatives in Marzahn German\",\"authors\":\"Hans-Martin Gärtner ,&nbsp;Andreas Pankau\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.pragma.2024.08.003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The following paper deals with the division of pragmatic labor between two types of <em>wh</em>-interrogatives in Marzahn German (MG). Use of the first type, marked by the enclitic particle <em>n</em> ([<em>n</em>-<span>int</span>]), is near obligatory for and confined to canonical, i.e., information-seeking question acts. The second type, lacking <em>n</em> ([∅-<span>int</span>]), has to be employed in non-canonical questions, such as rhetorical ones. This pattern of apparent markedness-reversal challenges the pretense-based approach to exam questions by Plunze and Zimmermann (2006) (Section 2) and plausibilizes an approach to information-seeking questions in terms of social cost in the sense of Levinson (2012) (Section 3.1). Overall empirical evidence, however, favors an account of <em>n</em>-marking as reinforcement of question act defaults in line with Farkas (2022) (Section 3.2). Section 5 offers a formulation of reinforcement in terms of the \\\"table model\\\" of discourse (Farkas 2022), such that the peculiar status of MG [<em>n</em>-<span>int</span>] follows from the prohibition of contextually overriding \\\"basic conventional discourse effects\\\".</p><p>In the course of the above discussion, we will scrutinize different notions of interrogative sentential force (Sections 1, 2, 5), illustrate the form and workings of several types of non-canonical questions (guess, rhetorical, echo etc.), and analyze question use in the light of institutional settings and interpersonal effects (3.3).</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16899,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Pragmatics\",\"volume\":\"232 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 102-116\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378216624001541/pdfft?md5=e0cd30aca0b2009c0b9ceca97613857a&pid=1-s2.0-S0378216624001541-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Pragmatics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378216624001541\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pragmatics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378216624001541","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

下文论述了马尔扎恩德语(MG)中两类wh-问句的语用分工。第一种类型以附点质点 n([n-int])为标志,几乎是必须使用的,而且仅限于典型的,即寻求信息的疑问行为。第二种类型缺少 n([∅-int]),必须在非规范疑问句(如修辞疑问句)中使用。这种明显的标记性反转模式对 Plunze 和 Zimmermann(2006)(第 2 节)基于伪装的考试问题方法提出了挑战,并使 Levinson(2012)(第 3.1 节)从社会成本的角度来处理信息搜寻问题的方法变得合理化。然而,总体的经验证据更倾向于将 n 标记解释为与法卡斯(2022)一致的对问题行为缺省的强化(第 3.2 节)。第 5 节根据话语的 "表模型"(Farkas,2022 年)对强化进行了表述,MG[n-int]的特殊地位源于禁止上下文超越 "基本常规话语效果"。在上述讨论过程中,我们将仔细研究不同的疑问句句力概念(第 1、2、5 节),说明几种非规范疑问句(猜测句、修辞句、呼应句等)的形式和作用,并从制度环境和人际效果的角度分析疑问句的使用(3.3)。
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
Pragmatic aspects of wh-interrogatives in Marzahn German

The following paper deals with the division of pragmatic labor between two types of wh-interrogatives in Marzahn German (MG). Use of the first type, marked by the enclitic particle n ([n-int]), is near obligatory for and confined to canonical, i.e., information-seeking question acts. The second type, lacking n ([∅-int]), has to be employed in non-canonical questions, such as rhetorical ones. This pattern of apparent markedness-reversal challenges the pretense-based approach to exam questions by Plunze and Zimmermann (2006) (Section 2) and plausibilizes an approach to information-seeking questions in terms of social cost in the sense of Levinson (2012) (Section 3.1). Overall empirical evidence, however, favors an account of n-marking as reinforcement of question act defaults in line with Farkas (2022) (Section 3.2). Section 5 offers a formulation of reinforcement in terms of the "table model" of discourse (Farkas 2022), such that the peculiar status of MG [n-int] follows from the prohibition of contextually overriding "basic conventional discourse effects".

In the course of the above discussion, we will scrutinize different notions of interrogative sentential force (Sections 1, 2, 5), illustrate the form and workings of several types of non-canonical questions (guess, rhetorical, echo etc.), and analyze question use in the light of institutional settings and interpersonal effects (3.3).

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
3.90
自引率
18.80%
发文量
219
期刊介绍: Since 1977, the Journal of Pragmatics has provided a forum for bringing together a wide range of research in pragmatics, including cognitive pragmatics, corpus pragmatics, experimental pragmatics, historical pragmatics, interpersonal pragmatics, multimodal pragmatics, sociopragmatics, theoretical pragmatics and related fields. Our aim is to publish innovative pragmatic scholarship from all perspectives, which contributes to theories of how speakers produce and interpret language in different contexts drawing on attested data from a wide range of languages/cultures in different parts of the world. The Journal of Pragmatics also encourages work that uses attested language data to explore the relationship between pragmatics and neighbouring research areas such as semantics, discourse analysis, conversation analysis and ethnomethodology, interactional linguistics, sociolinguistics, linguistic anthropology, media studies, psychology, sociology, and the philosophy of language. Alongside full-length articles, discussion notes and book reviews, the journal welcomes proposals for high quality special issues in all areas of pragmatics which make a significant contribution to a topical or developing area at the cutting-edge of research.
期刊最新文献
Towards a social syntax Embedding answers into ongoing story (and other extended) telling in conversational interaction Saying goodbye to and thanking bus drivers in German-speaking Switzerland Welp in talk-in-interaction: Moving on from publicly available disappointments “I jigglyfucked you with Luigi!”: Person deixis in local multiplayer combat video game play
×
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