论荷兰语中助动词“do”的可接受性

Q2 Arts and Humanities
Cansel Sert, Ferdy Hubers, Theresa Redl, Helen de Hoop
{"title":"论荷兰语中助动词“do”的可接受性","authors":"Cansel Sert, Ferdy Hubers, Theresa Redl, Helen de Hoop","doi":"10.1075/avt.00088.ser","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The auxiliary doen ‘do’ in standard Dutch is usually described as ‘dummy’ because it supposedly adds nothing substantial to the meaning of the sentence. We argue, however, that the auxiliary does have a function in the sentence, as a marker of either habitual or intentional aspect. In an online production experiment, we investigated the acceptability of the allegedly dummy auxiliary doen ‘do’. Results show that the degree of acceptability of the auxiliary doen ‘do’ is very low, even lower than the widely disapproved use of hun ‘them’ as a subject in Dutch. However, because a significant difference was found in the acceptability between the habitual and the intentional reading, we conclude that the auxiliary doen ‘do’ in Dutch cannot be dummy, i.e. semantically empty.","PeriodicalId":35138,"journal":{"name":"Linguistics in the Netherlands","volume":"48 10","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On the acceptability of the not so dummy auxiliary ‘do’ in Dutch\",\"authors\":\"Cansel Sert, Ferdy Hubers, Theresa Redl, Helen de Hoop\",\"doi\":\"10.1075/avt.00088.ser\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The auxiliary doen ‘do’ in standard Dutch is usually described as ‘dummy’ because it supposedly adds nothing substantial to the meaning of the sentence. We argue, however, that the auxiliary does have a function in the sentence, as a marker of either habitual or intentional aspect. In an online production experiment, we investigated the acceptability of the allegedly dummy auxiliary doen ‘do’. Results show that the degree of acceptability of the auxiliary doen ‘do’ is very low, even lower than the widely disapproved use of hun ‘them’ as a subject in Dutch. However, because a significant difference was found in the acceptability between the habitual and the intentional reading, we conclude that the auxiliary doen ‘do’ in Dutch cannot be dummy, i.e. semantically empty.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35138,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Linguistics in the Netherlands\",\"volume\":\"48 10\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Linguistics in the Netherlands\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00088.ser\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Linguistics in the Netherlands","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00088.ser","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

标准荷兰语中的助词doen do通常被描述为dummy,因为它被认为对句子的意思没有实质性的帮助。然而,我们认为助词在句子中确实有一个功能,作为习惯或意图方面的标记。在一个在线生产实验中,我们调查了所谓的虚拟辅助“不做”的可接受性。结果表明,助词“do”的可接受程度非常低,甚至低于荷兰语中普遍不被接受的“they”作为主语的使用。然而,由于习惯阅读和意向阅读的可接受性存在显著差异,我们得出结论,荷兰语中的助动词“do”不可能是假的,即语义上是空的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
On the acceptability of the not so dummy auxiliary ‘do’ in Dutch
Abstract The auxiliary doen ‘do’ in standard Dutch is usually described as ‘dummy’ because it supposedly adds nothing substantial to the meaning of the sentence. We argue, however, that the auxiliary does have a function in the sentence, as a marker of either habitual or intentional aspect. In an online production experiment, we investigated the acceptability of the allegedly dummy auxiliary doen ‘do’. Results show that the degree of acceptability of the auxiliary doen ‘do’ is very low, even lower than the widely disapproved use of hun ‘them’ as a subject in Dutch. However, because a significant difference was found in the acceptability between the habitual and the intentional reading, we conclude that the auxiliary doen ‘do’ in Dutch cannot be dummy, i.e. semantically empty.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Linguistics in the Netherlands
Linguistics in the Netherlands Arts and Humanities-Language and Linguistics
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: Linguistics in the Netherlands is a series of annual publications, sponsored by the Dutch Linguistics Association (Algemene Vereniging voor Taalwetenschap) and published by John Benjamins Publishing Company since Volume 8 in 1991. Each volume contains a careful selection through peer review of papers presented at the annual meeting of the society. The aim of the annual meeting is to provide members with an opportunity to report on their work in progress. Each volume presents an overview of research in different fields of linguistics in the Netherlands containing articles on phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax and semantics.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信