On order and prohibition

IF 0.5 3区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS
Daniël Van Olmen
{"title":"On order and prohibition","authors":"Daniël Van Olmen","doi":"10.1075/sl.19036.van","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The present article examines the claim in the literature that the negative first principle, i.e. the preference\n for the order negation-verb to verb-negation, is stronger in negative imperatives (or prohibitives) than in negative declaratives.\n To test this hypothesis, we develop – in contrast to earlier research – a systematic, three-way classification of languages, which\n is also operationalized as a ranking capturing the overall level of strength of the principle. This classification is applied to a\n genealogically and geographically balanced sample of 179 languages. In addition, we consider the role of several factors known to\n correlate with the position of negation – like its form, constituent order and areality. However, no cross-linguistic evidence is\n found for any difference in negation’s position between negative imperatives and negative declaratives. We therefore conclude that\n the hypothesis should be rejected.","PeriodicalId":46377,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Language","volume":"64 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in Language","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.19036.van","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: 4

Abstract

The present article examines the claim in the literature that the negative first principle, i.e. the preference for the order negation-verb to verb-negation, is stronger in negative imperatives (or prohibitives) than in negative declaratives. To test this hypothesis, we develop – in contrast to earlier research – a systematic, three-way classification of languages, which is also operationalized as a ranking capturing the overall level of strength of the principle. This classification is applied to a genealogically and geographically balanced sample of 179 languages. In addition, we consider the role of several factors known to correlate with the position of negation – like its form, constituent order and areality. However, no cross-linguistic evidence is found for any difference in negation’s position between negative imperatives and negative declaratives. We therefore conclude that the hypothesis should be rejected.
论秩序与禁令
本文研究了文献中的否定第一原则,即否定动词顺序对动词否定顺序的偏好,在否定祈使句(或禁止句)中比在否定陈述句中更强。为了验证这一假设,与早期的研究相反,我们开发了一种系统的、三向的语言分类,这种分类也可以作为一种排名来操作,以捕捉该原则的总体强度水平。这一分类适用于按家谱和地理分布平衡的179种语言样本。此外,我们还考虑了几个已知与否定位置相关的因素的作用,如否定的形式、构成顺序和现实性。然而,没有跨语言证据表明否定祈使句和否定陈述句在否定位置上有任何差异。因此,我们得出结论,应该拒绝这个假设。
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
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: Studies in Language provides a forum for the discussion of issues in contemporary linguistics from discourse-pragmatic, functional, and typological perspectives. Areas of central concern are: discourse grammar; syntactic, morphological and semantic universals; pragmatics; grammaticalization and grammaticalization theory; and the description of problems in individual languages from a discourse-pragmatic, functional, and typological perspective. Special emphasis is placed on works which contribute to the development of discourse-pragmatic, functional, and typological theory and which explore the application of empirical methodology to the analysis of grammar.
×
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