NOMINALIZED CLAUSES AND DISCOURSE‐GIVENNESS: EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FROM RUSSIAN*

IF 0.4 3区文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS

STUDIA LINGUISTICA Pub Date : 2024-05-11 DOI:10.1111/stul.12232

Mikhail Knyazev, Ekaterina Rudaleva

{"title":"NOMINALIZED CLAUSES AND DISCOURSE‐GIVENNESS: EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FROM RUSSIAN*","authors":"Mikhail Knyazev, Ekaterina Rudaleva","doi":"10.1111/stul.12232","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In a seminal paper, Kiparsky & Kiparsky (1970) proposed a two‐way correspondence between presuppositionality of clauses and nominal structure. The proposal remains highly relevant to current research (a.o. Kastner 2015, Bochnak & Hanink 2022), despite the existence of counterexamples in both directions. In this paper, we examine Russian nominalized clauses to show that presuppositionality is indeed neither necessary nor sufficient for nominalization. However, instead of completely discarding the correspondence between presuppositionality and nominalization, we argue for a weaker “preference” hypothesis, whereby presuppositional, or discourse‐given, contexts are associated with a higher likelihood of nominalization compared to discourse‐new contexts. We provide support for the preference hypothesis based on four experimental studies, a forced‐choice and a givenness‐rating study using matrix negation as a proxy for givenness and a forced‐choice and a sentence completion study directly manipulating the discourse context. We suggest a tentative explanation for the preference hypothesis in terms of definiteness/familiarity marking.","PeriodicalId":46179,"journal":{"name":"STUDIA LINGUISTICA","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"STUDIA LINGUISTICA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/stul.12232","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: 0

Abstract

In a seminal paper, Kiparsky & Kiparsky (1970) proposed a two‐way correspondence between presuppositionality of clauses and nominal structure. The proposal remains highly relevant to current research (a.o. Kastner 2015, Bochnak & Hanink 2022), despite the existence of counterexamples in both directions. In this paper, we examine Russian nominalized clauses to show that presuppositionality is indeed neither necessary nor sufficient for nominalization. However, instead of completely discarding the correspondence between presuppositionality and nominalization, we argue for a weaker “preference” hypothesis, whereby presuppositional, or discourse‐given, contexts are associated with a higher likelihood of nominalization compared to discourse‐new contexts. We provide support for the preference hypothesis based on four experimental studies, a forced‐choice and a givenness‐rating study using matrix negation as a proxy for givenness and a forced‐choice and a sentence completion study directly manipulating the discourse context. We suggest a tentative explanation for the preference hypothesis in terms of definiteness/familiarity marking.

查看原文本刊更多论文

名词化从句和话语给定：来自俄语的实验证据*

Kiparsky & Kiparsky（1970 年）在一篇开创性论文中提出了分句的预设性与名词结构之间的双向对应关系。尽管在两个方向上都存在反例，但这一提议仍然与当前的研究高度相关（a.o. Kastner 2015, Bochnak & Hanink 2022）。在本文中，我们考察了俄语的名词化分句，以证明预设性对于名词化确实既不是必要的，也不是充分的。然而，我们并没有完全抛弃预设性与名词化之间的对应关系，而是提出了一个较弱的 "偏好 "假设，即与话语新语境相比，预设性或话语给定语境与更高的名词化可能性相关联。我们基于四项实验研究为偏好假说提供了支持，其中一项是强迫选择和给定评价研究，使用矩阵否定作为给定的替代；另一项是强迫选择和句子完成研究，直接操纵话语语境。我们建议从定义/熟悉标记的角度对偏好假说进行初步解释。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

STUDIA LINGUISTICA LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS-

CiteScore

1.20

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Studia Linguistica is committed to the publication of high quality, original papers and provides an international forum for the discussion of theoretical linguistic research, primarily within the fields of grammar, cognitive semantics and language typology. The principal aim is to open a channel of communication between researchers operating in traditionally diverse fields while continuing to focus on natural language data.