A few or several? Construal, quantity, and argumentativity

IF 1.1 3区 心理学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS
Nicole Katzir, Mira Ariel
{"title":"A few or several? Construal, quantity, and argumentativity","authors":"Nicole Katzir, Mira Ariel","doi":"10.1017/langcog.2023.25","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This study examines two seemingly similar quantifiers, a few and several, and argues that the differences between them go beyond the (slightly) different quantities they each denote. Specifically, we argue that several construes its nominal complement as composed of individuated entities, which renders them more prominent, and thus a stronger basis in support of a conclusion the speaker is arguing for. We base our analysis on two experiments and a corpus study. The experiments show that there is indeed an argumentative difference between the quantifiers, and the corpus study points to the discourse factors behind it. In comparison with a few, several is associated with a higher discourse prominence for its complement (greater individuation, significance) and with greater argumentative strength. Based on this data, we characterize the quantifiers’ prototypical discourse profiles. A typical instance of several occurs in persuasive genres, refers to a not-so-small quantity, construes the plural entity as composed of individuated entities, and contributes to a strong argument. A typical instance of a few occurs in non-persuasive genres, denotes a small quantity, construes the entities composing the plural entity as un-individuated, and contributes to a weak or neutral argument.","PeriodicalId":45880,"journal":{"name":"Language and Cognition","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Language and Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2023.25","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study examines two seemingly similar quantifiers, a few and several, and argues that the differences between them go beyond the (slightly) different quantities they each denote. Specifically, we argue that several construes its nominal complement as composed of individuated entities, which renders them more prominent, and thus a stronger basis in support of a conclusion the speaker is arguing for. We base our analysis on two experiments and a corpus study. The experiments show that there is indeed an argumentative difference between the quantifiers, and the corpus study points to the discourse factors behind it. In comparison with a few, several is associated with a higher discourse prominence for its complement (greater individuation, significance) and with greater argumentative strength. Based on this data, we characterize the quantifiers’ prototypical discourse profiles. A typical instance of several occurs in persuasive genres, refers to a not-so-small quantity, construes the plural entity as composed of individuated entities, and contributes to a strong argument. A typical instance of a few occurs in non-persuasive genres, denotes a small quantity, construes the entities composing the plural entity as un-individuated, and contributes to a weak or neutral argument.
几个还是几个?结构、数量和辩论性
本研究考察了两个看似相似的量词,a few和几个,并认为它们之间的差异超出了它们各自表示的(略微)不同的数量。具体来说,我们认为,一些人将其名义补语解释为由个性化实体组成,这使得它们更加突出,从而成为支持说话者所主张的结论的更强有力的基础。我们的分析基于两个实验和一个语料库研究。实验表明,量词之间确实存在论证差异,语料库研究指出了其背后的话语因素。与a few相比,几个与更高的话语突出性有关,因为它的补充(更个性化、更重要)和更强的论证力。基于这些数据,我们描述了量词的原型语篇特征。几个的典型例子出现在说服性文体中,指的是一个不那么小的数量,将复数实体解释为由个体实体组成,并有助于强有力的论点。少数的典型例子出现在非说服性的文体中,表示一个小数量,将构成复数实体的实体解释为非个体化的,并有助于弱或中立的论点。
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
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
×
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