反诘语法否定

IF 0.6 3区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS Functions of Language Pub Date : 2018-10-19 DOI:10.1075/FOL.15030.SAL
Jutta Salminen
{"title":"反诘语法否定","authors":"Jutta Salminen","doi":"10.1075/FOL.15030.SAL","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This paper examines the phenomenon of paratactic negation (PN) by analyzing the usage of the Finnish verb epäillä (‘doubt’, ‘suspect’, ‘suppose’), which is associated with both inherent negation and negative evaluation. Paratactic negation refers to\n an overt negation in a complement clause of an inherently negative verb that results in a single negative reading. This analysis\n draws on previous research going back to Jespersen (1917), in observing that the PN\n complement clause verbalizes the content of the activity that is expressed by the matrix verb. In this case, the verb of inherent\n negation does not have scope over the complement despite its negative semantics. This paper addresses the question of where and\n why content complements actually occur. The answer to this question is given by accounting for the differences of the content\n complements from more clearly subordinate target complements. It is shown that this distinction is related to verb semantics and\n conventionalized syntagmatic patterns. This is demonstrated by accounting for the differences of the content complements from more\n clearly subordinate target complements. On the basis of these results, the paper offers a refined definition of paratactic\n negation. This definition has two major implications: First, it suggests that a semantically non-vacuous PN may be a\n conventionalized pattern. Second, it leads us to reconsider the limits of PN and the definition of inherent negation.","PeriodicalId":44232,"journal":{"name":"Functions of Language","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2018-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1075/FOL.15030.SAL","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Paratactic negation revisited\",\"authors\":\"Jutta Salminen\",\"doi\":\"10.1075/FOL.15030.SAL\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n This paper examines the phenomenon of paratactic negation (PN) by analyzing the usage of the Finnish verb epäillä (‘doubt’, ‘suspect’, ‘suppose’), which is associated with both inherent negation and negative evaluation. Paratactic negation refers to\\n an overt negation in a complement clause of an inherently negative verb that results in a single negative reading. This analysis\\n draws on previous research going back to Jespersen (1917), in observing that the PN\\n complement clause verbalizes the content of the activity that is expressed by the matrix verb. In this case, the verb of inherent\\n negation does not have scope over the complement despite its negative semantics. This paper addresses the question of where and\\n why content complements actually occur. The answer to this question is given by accounting for the differences of the content\\n complements from more clearly subordinate target complements. It is shown that this distinction is related to verb semantics and\\n conventionalized syntagmatic patterns. This is demonstrated by accounting for the differences of the content complements from more\\n clearly subordinate target complements. On the basis of these results, the paper offers a refined definition of paratactic\\n negation. This definition has two major implications: First, it suggests that a semantically non-vacuous PN may be a\\n conventionalized pattern. Second, it leads us to reconsider the limits of PN and the definition of inherent negation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44232,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Functions of Language\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-10-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1075/FOL.15030.SAL\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Functions of Language\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1075/FOL.15030.SAL\",\"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":"Functions of Language","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/FOL.15030.SAL","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

本文通过分析芬兰语动词epäillä(“doubt”、“suspective”、“假想”)的用法,考察了并列否定现象。并列否定是指在一个固有否定动词的补语从句中的一种显性否定,导致一次否定阅读。该分析借鉴了Jespersen(1917)的先前研究,观察到PN补语从句将矩阵动词所表达的活动内容动词化。在这种情况下,固有否定的动词尽管具有否定语义,但在补语上没有范围。本文讨论了内容补充在何处以及为什么实际发生的问题。这个问题的答案是通过解释内容补语与更明确的从属目标补语的差异来给出的。结果表明,这一区别与动词语义和惯用句法模式有关。这可以通过解释内容补语与更明确的从属目标补语的差异来证明。在此基础上,本文提出了并列否定的精细定义。这个定义有两个主要含义:首先,它表明语义上非空洞的PN可能是一种惯例化的模式。其次,它引导我们重新考虑PN的局限性和固有否定的定义。
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
Paratactic negation revisited
This paper examines the phenomenon of paratactic negation (PN) by analyzing the usage of the Finnish verb epäillä (‘doubt’, ‘suspect’, ‘suppose’), which is associated with both inherent negation and negative evaluation. Paratactic negation refers to an overt negation in a complement clause of an inherently negative verb that results in a single negative reading. This analysis draws on previous research going back to Jespersen (1917), in observing that the PN complement clause verbalizes the content of the activity that is expressed by the matrix verb. In this case, the verb of inherent negation does not have scope over the complement despite its negative semantics. This paper addresses the question of where and why content complements actually occur. The answer to this question is given by accounting for the differences of the content complements from more clearly subordinate target complements. It is shown that this distinction is related to verb semantics and conventionalized syntagmatic patterns. This is demonstrated by accounting for the differences of the content complements from more clearly subordinate target complements. On the basis of these results, the paper offers a refined definition of paratactic negation. This definition has two major implications: First, it suggests that a semantically non-vacuous PN may be a conventionalized pattern. Second, it leads us to reconsider the limits of PN and the definition of inherent 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
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: Functions of Language is an international journal of linguistics which explores the functionalist perspective on the organisation and use of natural language. It encourages the interplay of theory and description, and provides space for the detailed analysis, qualitative or quantitative, of linguistic data from a broad range of languages. Its scope is broad, covering such matters as prosodic phenomena in phonology, the clause in its communicative context, and regularities of pragmatics, conversation and discourse, as well as the interaction between the various levels of analysis. The overall purpose is to contribute to our understanding of how the use of languages in speech and writing has impacted, and continues to impact, upon the structure of those languages.
期刊最新文献
The functions of evidentiality On the co-optation of according to as an evidential in English Review of Martin, Quiroz & Wang (2023): Systemic functional grammar: A text-based description of English, Spanish and Chinese Review of Yus (2023): Pragmatics of internet humour Definite-like meaning of bare classifiers in Nung
×
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