定义你的P和Q:在字典中描述和规定礼貌

Q2 Arts and Humanities Dictionaries Pub Date : 2019-12-14 DOI:10.1353/dic.2019.0014
M. Murphy
{"title":"定义你的P和Q:在字典中描述和规定礼貌","authors":"M. Murphy","doi":"10.1353/dic.2019.0014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT:The politeness markers please, thank you, and sorry provide a raft of problems for lexicographical treatment. Grammatically, they fall between categories. As pragmatic elements, they defy easy definition, and variations in their usage are subtle. Few words are prescribed so vigorously as politeness markers (\"always say please and thank you\"), yet they do not fit the stereotype of a prescription, in that there is no proscription. This study investigates how please, thank you, thanks, and sorry are treated in thirteen monolingual dictionaries of English, finding variation in (a) the extent to which their interactional functions are covered, (b) the types of information contained in definitions, and (c) the (sometimes very subtle) ways in which information about the potential (im)polite effects of these words is communicated. Learner dictionaries generally provide more explicit information about the polysemy of these expressions, while traditional American lexicography provides much less useful information, in part because of a tendency to define interactional word senses using similar formulae to those for denotational senses. The best definition practice emphasizes the actions the words perform and the contexts in which the actions take place.","PeriodicalId":35106,"journal":{"name":"Dictionaries","volume":"40 1","pages":"61 - 92"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/dic.2019.0014","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Defining your P's and Q's: Describing and Prescribing Politeness in Dictionaries\",\"authors\":\"M. Murphy\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/dic.2019.0014\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT:The politeness markers please, thank you, and sorry provide a raft of problems for lexicographical treatment. Grammatically, they fall between categories. As pragmatic elements, they defy easy definition, and variations in their usage are subtle. Few words are prescribed so vigorously as politeness markers (\\\"always say please and thank you\\\"), yet they do not fit the stereotype of a prescription, in that there is no proscription. This study investigates how please, thank you, thanks, and sorry are treated in thirteen monolingual dictionaries of English, finding variation in (a) the extent to which their interactional functions are covered, (b) the types of information contained in definitions, and (c) the (sometimes very subtle) ways in which information about the potential (im)polite effects of these words is communicated. Learner dictionaries generally provide more explicit information about the polysemy of these expressions, while traditional American lexicography provides much less useful information, in part because of a tendency to define interactional word senses using similar formulae to those for denotational senses. The best definition practice emphasizes the actions the words perform and the contexts in which the actions take place.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35106,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Dictionaries\",\"volume\":\"40 1\",\"pages\":\"61 - 92\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-12-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/dic.2019.0014\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Dictionaries\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/dic.2019.0014\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dictionaries","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/dic.2019.0014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:“请”、“谢谢”、“对不起”等礼貌标记给词典编纂带来了诸多问题。从语法上讲,它们属于不同的类别。作为实用主义元素,它们很难被简单地定义,而且它们的用法变化也很微妙。很少有什么词像礼貌标记那样被严格规定(“总是说请和谢谢”),但它们并不符合规定的刻板印象,因为没有禁止。本研究调查了13本单语英语词典中“请”、“谢谢”、“谢谢”和“对不起”是如何被处理的,发现了以下方面的差异:(a)它们的互动功能涵盖的程度,(b)定义中包含的信息类型,以及(c)这些词的潜在(非)礼貌效果的信息传达方式(有时非常微妙)。学习型词典通常会提供更多关于这些表达的多义词的明确信息,而传统的美国词典编纂提供的有用信息要少得多,部分原因是人们倾向于使用与意指意义相似的公式来定义相互作用的词义。最佳定义实践强调单词执行的动作和动作发生的上下文。
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
Defining your P's and Q's: Describing and Prescribing Politeness in Dictionaries
ABSTRACT:The politeness markers please, thank you, and sorry provide a raft of problems for lexicographical treatment. Grammatically, they fall between categories. As pragmatic elements, they defy easy definition, and variations in their usage are subtle. Few words are prescribed so vigorously as politeness markers ("always say please and thank you"), yet they do not fit the stereotype of a prescription, in that there is no proscription. This study investigates how please, thank you, thanks, and sorry are treated in thirteen monolingual dictionaries of English, finding variation in (a) the extent to which their interactional functions are covered, (b) the types of information contained in definitions, and (c) the (sometimes very subtle) ways in which information about the potential (im)polite effects of these words is communicated. Learner dictionaries generally provide more explicit information about the polysemy of these expressions, while traditional American lexicography provides much less useful information, in part because of a tendency to define interactional word senses using similar formulae to those for denotational senses. The best definition practice emphasizes the actions the words perform and the contexts in which the actions take place.
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
Dictionaries
Dictionaries Arts and Humanities-Language and Linguistics
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
期刊最新文献
Compiling The Oxford Dictionary of African American English: A Progress Report E. Ward Gilman: In Memoriam Editorial The Velar Nasal in thing and think: Evidence from Thomas Spence's (1775) Pronouncing Dictionary for the Eighteenth-Century English Phonology Database What is new in EDD Online 4.0?
×
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