Evidence from Balinese: Subject-Versus Object-Control Varies According to the Identity of the Verb, but not Necessarily the Probability of the Event Described

IF 0.9 Q3 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
I. N. Aryawibawa, Gede Primahadi Wijaya Rajeg, Ketut Artawa, Ben Ambridge
{"title":"Evidence from Balinese: Subject-Versus Object-Control Varies According to the Identity of the Verb, but not Necessarily the Probability of the Event Described","authors":"I. N. Aryawibawa, Gede Primahadi Wijaya Rajeg, Ketut Artawa, Ben Ambridge","doi":"10.24843/jkb.2023.v13.i01.p02","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The objective of the present study was to investigate whether interpretation (Subject-vs-Object control) of an understudied type of control sentence (Sarahi wants someonej [PROi/j] to entertain) depends at least in part on which scenario is most probable. In Study 1, 44 Balinese speakers each rated the relative acceptability of the Subject- and Object-control readings of 272 Balinese sentences of this type. In Study 2, 20 Balinese speakers rated the likelihood of scenarios corresponding to the Subject- and Object-control readings of the sentences from Study 1. Counter to our predictions, however, these ratings did not significantly predict the relative acceptability of the Subject- and Object-control readings from Study 1, apparently because of other, uncontrolled differences between the verbs. We conclude that the question of whether the interpretation of control sentences depends on the relative probability of the scenarios remains unanswered; similar studies in other languages would help resolve this issue \n ","PeriodicalId":44369,"journal":{"name":"Bali Medical Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bali Medical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24843/jkb.2023.v13.i01.p02","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The objective of the present study was to investigate whether interpretation (Subject-vs-Object control) of an understudied type of control sentence (Sarahi wants someonej [PROi/j] to entertain) depends at least in part on which scenario is most probable. In Study 1, 44 Balinese speakers each rated the relative acceptability of the Subject- and Object-control readings of 272 Balinese sentences of this type. In Study 2, 20 Balinese speakers rated the likelihood of scenarios corresponding to the Subject- and Object-control readings of the sentences from Study 1. Counter to our predictions, however, these ratings did not significantly predict the relative acceptability of the Subject- and Object-control readings from Study 1, apparently because of other, uncontrolled differences between the verbs. We conclude that the question of whether the interpretation of control sentences depends on the relative probability of the scenarios remains unanswered; similar studies in other languages would help resolve this issue  
来自巴厘语的证据:主语与客体的控制根据动词的身份而变化,但不一定是描述事件的概率
本研究的目的是调查一种未被充分研究的控制句类型(萨拉希想要某人[PROi/j]娱乐)的解释(主体对客体控制)是否至少部分取决于哪种情景最有可能。在研究1中,44位巴厘语使用者分别对272个这种类型的巴厘语句子的主语控制和客体控制阅读的相对可接受度进行了评分。在研究2中,20名说巴厘语的人对研究1中句子的主语控制和客体控制阅读所对应情景的可能性进行评分。然而,与我们的预测相反,这些评分并没有显著地预测研究1中主语控制和客体控制读数的相对可接受性,显然是因为动词之间存在其他不受控制的差异。我们得出的结论是,控制句的解释是否取决于场景的相对概率的问题仍然没有得到回答;对其他语言的类似研究将有助于解决这个问题
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
Bali Medical Journal
Bali Medical Journal MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
自引率
50.00%
发文量
8
审稿时长
3 weeks
×
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