重新审视Hudson(1992)的OO = O2假说:基于用法的英语及物结构变分主义研究方法

Q2 Arts and Humanities Acta Linguistica Hafniensia Pub Date : 2018-01-02 DOI:10.1080/03740463.2017.1333873
Yoshikata Shibuya, Kim Ebensgaard Jensen
{"title":"重新审视Hudson(1992)的OO = O2假说:基于用法的英语及物结构变分主义研究方法","authors":"Yoshikata Shibuya, Kim Ebensgaard Jensen","doi":"10.1080/03740463.2017.1333873","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In an important paper on the English “double-object”, or ditransitive, construction, Richard Hudson proposes a hypothesis that conflates the ditransitive direct object, or O2, and the monotransitive direct object, or OO, into the same syntactic functional category. While making important departures from a number of unfortunate assumptions within mainstream formal theories of linguistics at the time, the OO = O2 hypothesis itself is problematic in the perspective of contemporary cognitive linguistics. This paper addresses the hypothesis from the perspective of usage-based construction grammar. Applying simple collexeme analysis and multifactorial heatmap analysis to instances of OOs and O2s in ICE-GB, this paper shows that the usage-patterns of both are far too complex, displaying cross-register variation, for the OO = O2 hypothesis to be tenable. The findings provide support for a usage-based variationist account in defining syntactic functional categories.","PeriodicalId":35105,"journal":{"name":"Acta Linguistica Hafniensia","volume":"9 1","pages":"101 - 73"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Revisiting Hudson’s (1992) OO = O2 hypothesis: a usage-based variationist approach to the English ditransitive construction\",\"authors\":\"Yoshikata Shibuya, Kim Ebensgaard Jensen\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/03740463.2017.1333873\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract In an important paper on the English “double-object”, or ditransitive, construction, Richard Hudson proposes a hypothesis that conflates the ditransitive direct object, or O2, and the monotransitive direct object, or OO, into the same syntactic functional category. While making important departures from a number of unfortunate assumptions within mainstream formal theories of linguistics at the time, the OO = O2 hypothesis itself is problematic in the perspective of contemporary cognitive linguistics. This paper addresses the hypothesis from the perspective of usage-based construction grammar. Applying simple collexeme analysis and multifactorial heatmap analysis to instances of OOs and O2s in ICE-GB, this paper shows that the usage-patterns of both are far too complex, displaying cross-register variation, for the OO = O2 hypothesis to be tenable. The findings provide support for a usage-based variationist account in defining syntactic functional categories.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35105,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta Linguistica Hafniensia\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"101 - 73\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta Linguistica Hafniensia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/03740463.2017.1333873\",\"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":"Acta Linguistica Hafniensia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03740463.2017.1333873","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

理查德·哈德森在一篇关于英语“双宾”结构的重要论文中,提出了一个假设,将及物直接宾语O2和单及物直接宾语OO合并为同一句法功能范畴。虽然OO = O2假说与当时语言学主流形式理论中一些不幸的假设有重要的背离,但从当代认知语言学的角度来看,OO = O2假说本身是有问题的。本文从基于用法的构式语法的角度对这一假设进行了论证。通过对ICE-GB中OOs和O2s实例进行简单的collexeme分析和多因子热图分析,发现两者的使用模式过于复杂,呈现出交叉配域变化,OO = O2假设无法成立。这些发现为基于用法的变分论在定义句法功能范畴方面提供了支持。
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
Revisiting Hudson’s (1992) OO = O2 hypothesis: a usage-based variationist approach to the English ditransitive construction
Abstract In an important paper on the English “double-object”, or ditransitive, construction, Richard Hudson proposes a hypothesis that conflates the ditransitive direct object, or O2, and the monotransitive direct object, or OO, into the same syntactic functional category. While making important departures from a number of unfortunate assumptions within mainstream formal theories of linguistics at the time, the OO = O2 hypothesis itself is problematic in the perspective of contemporary cognitive linguistics. This paper addresses the hypothesis from the perspective of usage-based construction grammar. Applying simple collexeme analysis and multifactorial heatmap analysis to instances of OOs and O2s in ICE-GB, this paper shows that the usage-patterns of both are far too complex, displaying cross-register variation, for the OO = O2 hypothesis to be tenable. The findings provide support for a usage-based variationist account in defining syntactic functional categories.
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
Acta Linguistica Hafniensia
Acta Linguistica Hafniensia Arts and Humanities-Language and Linguistics
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
5
期刊最新文献
Boundary-crossing situations and the use of deictic verbs in Finnish and Estonian expressions of non-actual motion Are discourse-initial action-guiding verbless speech acts elliptical? Bulletin du Cercle linguistique de Copenhague 2023 The use of case forms in Modern Danish – an empirical study Schematicity vs. lexicality: typological differences between Danish and Spanish
×
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