{"title":"“它”并不适合所有人:说话者对林堡语社会语用代词评价的差异","authors":"Joske Piepers, Ad Backus, Jos Swanenberg","doi":"10.3390/languages8040253","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper explores the different ways in which speakers of Limburgian think and feel about sociopragmatic pronouns in their dialect, in which women can traditionally be referred to with both ziej ‘she’ and het ‘she’ (lit. ‘it’). Previous research revealed variation between speakers regarding the use of het, which appears to be associated with differences in interpretation and evaluation. This study investigates this further by analyzing how individual speakers evaluate non-feminine pronouns for women. Our data show that many speakers have a relatively high level of awareness, discussing four key themes: (i) how female reference in Limburgian differs from that of Dutch; (ii) the appropriateness of using the pronouns for certain referents and/or in certain social situations; (iii) the various connotations the pronouns may have; and (iv) how they navigate between-speaker differences regarding pronoun evaluation in daily life. Importantly, this high level of awareness is not present in all speakers. These results indicate that the use or non-use of the pronoun het for female referents may be conditioned by cognitive automaticity for some speakers, and by a conscious, emotionally charged consideration about its desirability for others. Our findings, therefore, suggest the importance of integrating cognition and sociality in linguistic theorizing.","PeriodicalId":52329,"journal":{"name":"Languages","volume":"12 6","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"‘It’ Is Not for Everyone: Variation in Speakers’ Evaluation of Sociopragmatic Pronouns in Limburgian\",\"authors\":\"Joske Piepers, Ad Backus, Jos Swanenberg\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/languages8040253\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper explores the different ways in which speakers of Limburgian think and feel about sociopragmatic pronouns in their dialect, in which women can traditionally be referred to with both ziej ‘she’ and het ‘she’ (lit. ‘it’). Previous research revealed variation between speakers regarding the use of het, which appears to be associated with differences in interpretation and evaluation. This study investigates this further by analyzing how individual speakers evaluate non-feminine pronouns for women. Our data show that many speakers have a relatively high level of awareness, discussing four key themes: (i) how female reference in Limburgian differs from that of Dutch; (ii) the appropriateness of using the pronouns for certain referents and/or in certain social situations; (iii) the various connotations the pronouns may have; and (iv) how they navigate between-speaker differences regarding pronoun evaluation in daily life. Importantly, this high level of awareness is not present in all speakers. These results indicate that the use or non-use of the pronoun het for female referents may be conditioned by cognitive automaticity for some speakers, and by a conscious, emotionally charged consideration about its desirability for others. Our findings, therefore, suggest the importance of integrating cognition and sociality in linguistic theorizing.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52329,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Languages\",\"volume\":\"12 6\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Languages\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/languages8040253\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Languages","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/languages8040253","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
本文探讨了林堡语使用者对其方言中社会语用代词的不同思考和感受方式,在这种方言中,女性传统上可以被称为ziej ' she '和het ' she '(字面意思是' it ')。先前的研究揭示了说话者在使用het方面的差异,这似乎与解释和评价的差异有关。这项研究通过分析每个说话者如何评价女性的非阴性代词来进一步调查这一点。我们的数据显示,许多使用者都有相对较高的意识水平,讨论了四个关键主题:(i)林堡语的女性参考与荷兰语的不同之处;(ii)在特定指称物和/或特定社交情境中使用代词的适当性;(三)代词可能具有的各种内涵;以及(iv)日常生活中,他们如何处理说话者之间关于代词评价的差异。重要的是,并不是所有的演讲者都有这种高度的意识。这些结果表明,对女性指称物使用或不使用代词“het”可能受到一些说话者的认知自动性和对他人的可取性的有意识的、情绪化的考虑的制约。因此,我们的研究结果表明,在语言理论中整合认知和社会性的重要性。
‘It’ Is Not for Everyone: Variation in Speakers’ Evaluation of Sociopragmatic Pronouns in Limburgian
This paper explores the different ways in which speakers of Limburgian think and feel about sociopragmatic pronouns in their dialect, in which women can traditionally be referred to with both ziej ‘she’ and het ‘she’ (lit. ‘it’). Previous research revealed variation between speakers regarding the use of het, which appears to be associated with differences in interpretation and evaluation. This study investigates this further by analyzing how individual speakers evaluate non-feminine pronouns for women. Our data show that many speakers have a relatively high level of awareness, discussing four key themes: (i) how female reference in Limburgian differs from that of Dutch; (ii) the appropriateness of using the pronouns for certain referents and/or in certain social situations; (iii) the various connotations the pronouns may have; and (iv) how they navigate between-speaker differences regarding pronoun evaluation in daily life. Importantly, this high level of awareness is not present in all speakers. These results indicate that the use or non-use of the pronoun het for female referents may be conditioned by cognitive automaticity for some speakers, and by a conscious, emotionally charged consideration about its desirability for others. Our findings, therefore, suggest the importance of integrating cognition and sociality in linguistic theorizing.