Specialization and finiteness (a)symmetry in imperative negation: with a comparison to standard negation

IF 1.7 2区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS
Daniël Van Olmen [ˈdanijɛl vɑn ˈɔlmə]
{"title":"Specialization and finiteness (a)symmetry in imperative negation: with a comparison to standard negation","authors":"Daniël Van Olmen [ˈdanijɛl vɑn ˈɔlmə]","doi":"10.1515/lingty-2022-0007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article focuses primarily on the claim in previous research that finiteness asymmetry occurs less often in imperative negation, due to its illocutionary dynamicity, than in standard negation, due to its stativity. Its secondary aim is to identify the languages suitable to test this hypothesis, with specialized imperatives as well as negative imperatives. The findings of this identification process in a balanced 200-language sample confirm the imperative and its negative counterpart as near-universal sentence types while simultaneously providing evidence for specialization asymmetry and thus for a certain mutual independence between the two. The results about finiteness asymmetry challenge the earlier claim: not only is finiteness asymmetry equally frequent in the two domains of negation; an explicit expression of illocutionary dynamicity can even give rise to it in imperative negation. In general, imperative negation’s finiteness asymmetry is found to be relatively unrelated to standard negation’s and not to be attributable to one single principle. The article shows that a variety of processes, such as grammaticalization and insubordination, are at work. They are argued to be motivated by the diachronic instability of negative imperatives, itself likely due to competing factors like politeness and negative reinforcement.","PeriodicalId":45834,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Typology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Linguistic Typology","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2022-0007","RegionNum":2,"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

Abstract This article focuses primarily on the claim in previous research that finiteness asymmetry occurs less often in imperative negation, due to its illocutionary dynamicity, than in standard negation, due to its stativity. Its secondary aim is to identify the languages suitable to test this hypothesis, with specialized imperatives as well as negative imperatives. The findings of this identification process in a balanced 200-language sample confirm the imperative and its negative counterpart as near-universal sentence types while simultaneously providing evidence for specialization asymmetry and thus for a certain mutual independence between the two. The results about finiteness asymmetry challenge the earlier claim: not only is finiteness asymmetry equally frequent in the two domains of negation; an explicit expression of illocutionary dynamicity can even give rise to it in imperative negation. In general, imperative negation’s finiteness asymmetry is found to be relatively unrelated to standard negation’s and not to be attributable to one single principle. The article shows that a variety of processes, such as grammaticalization and insubordination, are at work. They are argued to be motivated by the diachronic instability of negative imperatives, itself likely due to competing factors like politeness and negative reinforcement.
祈使否定的特殊性与有限性(a)对称性——与标准否定的比较
摘要:本文主要关注先前研究的结论,即祈使句否定由于其言外动态而比标准否定由于其静态而较少发生有限不对称。它的第二个目的是确定适合测试这一假设的语言,包括专门的祈使句和否定祈使句。在一个平衡的200种语言样本中,这一识别过程的发现证实了祈使句及其否定句是几乎普遍的句子类型,同时也为专业化不对称提供了证据,因此两者之间存在一定的相互独立性。关于有限不对称的结果挑战了先前的说法:有限不对称不仅在两个否定域中同样频繁;言外动态的显式表达甚至可以在祈使否定中产生言外动态。总的来说,祈使句否定的有限不对称与标准否定的有限不对称是相对无关的,也不是单一原则的结果。文章表明,各种各样的过程,如语法化和不服从,都在起作用。他们被认为是由消极命令的历时不稳定性所驱动的,而消极命令本身可能是由礼貌和负强化等竞争因素引起的。
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
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
5.00%
发文量
13
期刊介绍: Linguistic Typology provides a forum for all work of relevance to the study of language typology and cross-linguistic variation. It welcomes work taking a typological perspective on all domains of the structure of spoken and signed languages, including historical change, language processing, and sociolinguistics. Diverse descriptive and theoretical frameworks are welcomed so long as they have a clear bearing on the study of cross-linguistic variation. We welcome cross-disciplinary approaches to the study of linguistic diversity, as well as work dealing with just one or a few languages, as long as it is typologically informed and typologically and theoretically relevant, and contains new empirical evidence.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信