自杀:自杀的“故意”行为?回顾七种自然语言的十九个理论论点和五十八个定义

Roger Vinícius da Silva Costa
{"title":"自杀:自杀的“故意”行为?回顾七种自然语言的十九个理论论点和五十八个定义","authors":"Roger Vinícius da Silva Costa","doi":"10.5752/p.2358-3428.2022v26n57p101-134","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Perhaps intentionality is the most problematic category in the definition of suicide, however there still seems to be no literature review of relevant theoretical arguments and main dictionaries of different languages. Given this situation, the general objective of this study was to understand how to treat the category of intentionality in the definition of suicide. A qualitative, quantitative, exploratory and bibliographic methodology was used. A narrative review based on 27 authors from different areas included 19 theoretical arguments, organized on a matrix. 7 arguments are applicable in defense of the thesis that suicide is intentional, another 7 to defend the opposite thesis that this phenomenon is not intentional and the remaining 5 apparently in favor of either of the two. Moving forward to an integrative review guided by 8 criteria, 58 definitions of noun and/or verb were extracted from 36 monolingual, digital dictionaries of Portuguese, Spanish, English, French, Italian, German and Russian. 72.22% of the selected dictionaries refer to suicide as intentional, and 27.78%, including all Portuguese ones, do not characterize it as such. In the first group, intentionality was referred mostly by lexical items equivalent to “intentional”, “voluntary” and “deliberate”, as well as adverbs based on them. The conclusion is that it is not feasible to include intentionality in the definition of suicide, because academic and lexicographic sources lack consensus. It is recommended to overcome the qualitative and quantitative limitations of this study, as well as to consult more than one definition of suicide and in different languages.","PeriodicalId":52749,"journal":{"name":"Scripta Alumni","volume":"15 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Suicide: “intentional” act of killing oneself? A review of nineteen theoretical arguments and fifty-eight definitions in seven natural languages\",\"authors\":\"Roger Vinícius da Silva Costa\",\"doi\":\"10.5752/p.2358-3428.2022v26n57p101-134\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Perhaps intentionality is the most problematic category in the definition of suicide, however there still seems to be no literature review of relevant theoretical arguments and main dictionaries of different languages. Given this situation, the general objective of this study was to understand how to treat the category of intentionality in the definition of suicide. A qualitative, quantitative, exploratory and bibliographic methodology was used. A narrative review based on 27 authors from different areas included 19 theoretical arguments, organized on a matrix. 7 arguments are applicable in defense of the thesis that suicide is intentional, another 7 to defend the opposite thesis that this phenomenon is not intentional and the remaining 5 apparently in favor of either of the two. Moving forward to an integrative review guided by 8 criteria, 58 definitions of noun and/or verb were extracted from 36 monolingual, digital dictionaries of Portuguese, Spanish, English, French, Italian, German and Russian. 72.22% of the selected dictionaries refer to suicide as intentional, and 27.78%, including all Portuguese ones, do not characterize it as such. In the first group, intentionality was referred mostly by lexical items equivalent to “intentional”, “voluntary” and “deliberate”, as well as adverbs based on them. The conclusion is that it is not feasible to include intentionality in the definition of suicide, because academic and lexicographic sources lack consensus. It is recommended to overcome the qualitative and quantitative limitations of this study, as well as to consult more than one definition of suicide and in different languages.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52749,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scripta Alumni\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scripta Alumni\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5752/p.2358-3428.2022v26n57p101-134\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scripta Alumni","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5752/p.2358-3428.2022v26n57p101-134","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

也许意向性是自杀定义中最有问题的一个范畴,然而相关的理论论点和不同语言的主要词典似乎仍然没有文献综述。鉴于这种情况,本研究的总体目标是了解如何对待自杀定义中的故意类别。采用了定性、定量、探索性和书目方法。一篇基于27位来自不同领域的作者的叙述性评论,包括19个理论论点,按矩阵组织。7个论点适用于支持自杀是故意的论点,另外7个论点适用于相反的论点,即这种现象不是故意的,剩下的5个显然支持两者中的任何一个。在8项标准的指导下,我们从36个单语数字词典中提取了58个名词和/或动词的定义,包括葡萄牙语、西班牙语、英语、法语、意大利语、德语和俄语,其中72.22%的词典将自杀定义为故意的,而27.78%的词典(包括所有葡萄牙语词典)并未将其定义为故意的。在第一组中,意向性主要由“有意的”、“自愿的”和“故意的”等词汇项目以及基于这些词汇的副词指代。结论是,在自杀的定义中包含故意是不可行的,因为学术和词典来源缺乏共识。建议克服本研究的定性和定量局限性,并参考多种不同语言的自杀定义。
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
Suicide: “intentional” act of killing oneself? A review of nineteen theoretical arguments and fifty-eight definitions in seven natural languages
Perhaps intentionality is the most problematic category in the definition of suicide, however there still seems to be no literature review of relevant theoretical arguments and main dictionaries of different languages. Given this situation, the general objective of this study was to understand how to treat the category of intentionality in the definition of suicide. A qualitative, quantitative, exploratory and bibliographic methodology was used. A narrative review based on 27 authors from different areas included 19 theoretical arguments, organized on a matrix. 7 arguments are applicable in defense of the thesis that suicide is intentional, another 7 to defend the opposite thesis that this phenomenon is not intentional and the remaining 5 apparently in favor of either of the two. Moving forward to an integrative review guided by 8 criteria, 58 definitions of noun and/or verb were extracted from 36 monolingual, digital dictionaries of Portuguese, Spanish, English, French, Italian, German and Russian. 72.22% of the selected dictionaries refer to suicide as intentional, and 27.78%, including all Portuguese ones, do not characterize it as such. In the first group, intentionality was referred mostly by lexical items equivalent to “intentional”, “voluntary” and “deliberate”, as well as adverbs based on them. The conclusion is that it is not feasible to include intentionality in the definition of suicide, because academic and lexicographic sources lack consensus. It is recommended to overcome the qualitative and quantitative limitations of this study, as well as to consult more than one definition of suicide and in different languages.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊最新文献
Ensino de Língua Portuguesa: ensinar o quê, para quê, por quê? Uma problematização à luz dos relatos de Estágio Supervisionado de graduandos em Letras Relações entre aspectos fonéticos-fonológicos e escolaridade na acurácia ortográfica de consoantes nasais no Ciclo de Alfabetização O mapa mental como metodologia ativa no ensino de leitura Contribuições e desafios na formação de professores no processo de ensino da leitura e da escrita A pedagogia de Paulo Freire e o ensino de literatura
×
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