谁会同意?

IF 0.6 3区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS Zeitschrift Fur Sprachwissenschaft Pub Date : 2019-11-03 DOI:10.1515/zfs-2019-2003
Yvonne Viesel, Constantin Freitag
{"title":"谁会同意?","authors":"Yvonne Viesel, Constantin Freitag","doi":"10.1515/zfs-2019-2003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The article explores German discourse particles (DiPs) in rhetorical wh-questions (wh-RQs). While schon (roughly ‘unexpectedly’) only marks rhetorical wh-questions, denn (roughly ‘I wonder’) marks contextually arising information-seeking or rhetorical Questions under Discussion (QuDs), with or without schon. Since ja (roughly ‘unquestionably’) marks shared information, it is incompatible with questions by itself, but occasionally occurs in wh-RQs left of DiPs like schon instead of denn. The results of two acceptability judgment experiments confirm that ja is strongly dispreferred in RQs, the presence of schon improves RQs with and without ja, and denn has no effect on acceptability. A follow-up study further indicated the rhetorical reading of our target questions to prevail independently from DiPs. We conclude that ja in RQs operates on the information contributed by elements like schon, denoting roughly that the issue in question arises ‘unquestionably against expectations’. Our contexts were neutral regarding the discourse functions of ja and denn (side remarks vs. QuDs), unlike the contexts of the findings, from which we deduce that the marked ja schon-RQs, while grammatical, require specific felicity conditions. A first attempt to confirm this experimentally was globally unsuccessful and could only reveal potential hints in an exploratory analysis.","PeriodicalId":43494,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift Fur Sprachwissenschaft","volume":"38 1","pages":"243 - 298"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/zfs-2019-2003","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Wer kann denn schon ja sagen?\",\"authors\":\"Yvonne Viesel, Constantin Freitag\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/zfs-2019-2003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The article explores German discourse particles (DiPs) in rhetorical wh-questions (wh-RQs). While schon (roughly ‘unexpectedly’) only marks rhetorical wh-questions, denn (roughly ‘I wonder’) marks contextually arising information-seeking or rhetorical Questions under Discussion (QuDs), with or without schon. Since ja (roughly ‘unquestionably’) marks shared information, it is incompatible with questions by itself, but occasionally occurs in wh-RQs left of DiPs like schon instead of denn. The results of two acceptability judgment experiments confirm that ja is strongly dispreferred in RQs, the presence of schon improves RQs with and without ja, and denn has no effect on acceptability. A follow-up study further indicated the rhetorical reading of our target questions to prevail independently from DiPs. We conclude that ja in RQs operates on the information contributed by elements like schon, denoting roughly that the issue in question arises ‘unquestionably against expectations’. Our contexts were neutral regarding the discourse functions of ja and denn (side remarks vs. QuDs), unlike the contexts of the findings, from which we deduce that the marked ja schon-RQs, while grammatical, require specific felicity conditions. A first attempt to confirm this experimentally was globally unsuccessful and could only reveal potential hints in an exploratory analysis.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43494,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Zeitschrift Fur Sprachwissenschaft\",\"volume\":\"38 1\",\"pages\":\"243 - 298\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-11-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/zfs-2019-2003\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Zeitschrift Fur Sprachwissenschaft\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/zfs-2019-2003\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"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":"Zeitschrift Fur Sprachwissenschaft","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/zfs-2019-2003","RegionNum":3,"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: 2

摘要

摘要本文探讨了德语语篇助词在修辞性wh问题中的作用。虽然schon(大致“出乎意料”)只标记修辞wh问题,但denn(大致“我想知道”)标记上下文中出现的信息寻求或讨论中的修辞问题(QuDs),无论是否使用schon。由于ja(大致“毫无疑问”)标记共享信息,它本身与问题不兼容,但偶尔会出现在像schon而不是denn这样的dip剩下的wh-RQ中。两个可接受性判断实验的结果证实,ja在RQs中强烈分散,schon的存在改善了有和没有ja的RQs,而denn对可接受性没有影响。一项后续研究进一步表明,我们的目标问题的修辞阅读独立于DiP。我们得出的结论是,RQ中的ja是根据schon等元素提供的信息进行操作的,这大致表明所讨论的问题“毫无疑问是违背预期的”。我们的语境对ja和denn的话语功能是中立的(旁注与QuDs),与研究结果的语境不同,我们从中推断出标记的ja schon RQs在语法上需要特定的适当条件。第一次尝试通过实验证实这一点在全球范围内都没有成功,只能在探索性分析中揭示潜在的线索。
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
Wer kann denn schon ja sagen?
Abstract The article explores German discourse particles (DiPs) in rhetorical wh-questions (wh-RQs). While schon (roughly ‘unexpectedly’) only marks rhetorical wh-questions, denn (roughly ‘I wonder’) marks contextually arising information-seeking or rhetorical Questions under Discussion (QuDs), with or without schon. Since ja (roughly ‘unquestionably’) marks shared information, it is incompatible with questions by itself, but occasionally occurs in wh-RQs left of DiPs like schon instead of denn. The results of two acceptability judgment experiments confirm that ja is strongly dispreferred in RQs, the presence of schon improves RQs with and without ja, and denn has no effect on acceptability. A follow-up study further indicated the rhetorical reading of our target questions to prevail independently from DiPs. We conclude that ja in RQs operates on the information contributed by elements like schon, denoting roughly that the issue in question arises ‘unquestionably against expectations’. Our contexts were neutral regarding the discourse functions of ja and denn (side remarks vs. QuDs), unlike the contexts of the findings, from which we deduce that the marked ja schon-RQs, while grammatical, require specific felicity conditions. A first attempt to confirm this experimentally was globally unsuccessful and could only reveal potential hints in an exploratory analysis.
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
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: The aim of the journal is to promote linguistic research by publishing high-quality contributions and thematic special issues from all fields and trends of modern linguistics. In addition to articles and reviews, the journal also features contributions to discussions on current controversies in the field as well as overview articles outlining the state-of-the art of relevant research paradigms. Topics: -General Linguistics -Language Typology -Language acquisition, language change and synchronic variation -Empirical linguistics: experimental and corpus-based research -Contributions to theory-building
期刊最新文献
Frontmatter X-Wörter im Deutschen: Ein Wortbildungsmuster zur diskursiven Vermeidung von Begriffen An experimental investigation of the interaction of narrators’ and protagonists’ perspectival prominence in narrative texts What cues do children use to infer the meaning of unknown words while reading? Empirical data from German-speaking third graders In the periphery of an indefinite pronoun. Forms and functions of conceptual agreement with jemand
×
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