语义否定的副词分句连接:"别管 "结构、祈使句否定及理论意义

IF 1.7 2区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS
Jesús he'sus olg'ɪn Olguín Martínez [mɑr'tinɛs]
{"title":"语义否定的副词分句连接:\"别管 \"结构、祈使句否定及理论意义","authors":"Jesús he'sus olg'ɪn Olguín Martínez [mɑr'tinɛs]","doi":"10.1515/lingty-2022-0066","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract One construction that has traditionally been neglected in the typological study of clause-linkage is that built on ‘let alone’ (e.g., the baby can’t even talk, let alone walk). The present study explores this construction in a convenience sample of 47 languages. There are languages in which ‘let alone’ clauses appear not only with a clause-linking device, but also with an optional standard negative marker. Moreover, there are languages in which standard negation is forbidden in the ‘let alone’ clause. Here it is shown that optional standard negation may be semantically empty or may have an expressive-evaluative layer of semantic interpretation. On the other hand, standard negation tends to be forbidden in ‘let alone’ clauses appearing with semantically monofunctional clause-linking devices. The paper further investigates whether the analysis advanced for ‘let alone’ clauses can be generalized to other semantically negative adverbial clauses: ‘without V-ing’, ‘instead of V-ing’, and ‘before’ clauses. It is demonstrated that in these latter adverbial clauses, standard negation may be forbidden or optional. Interestingly, unlike the situation with ‘let alone’ clauses, there are languages in which standard negation may be obligatory in the ‘without V-ing’, ‘instead of V-ing’, and ‘before’ clause. In this scenario, the adverbial relations are compositionally encoded by a standard negative marker together with a general marker.","PeriodicalId":45834,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Typology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Semantically negative adverbial clause-linkage: ‘let alone’ constructions, expletive negation, and theoretical implications\",\"authors\":\"Jesús he'sus olg'ɪn Olguín Martínez [mɑr'tinɛs]\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/lingty-2022-0066\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract One construction that has traditionally been neglected in the typological study of clause-linkage is that built on ‘let alone’ (e.g., the baby can’t even talk, let alone walk). The present study explores this construction in a convenience sample of 47 languages. There are languages in which ‘let alone’ clauses appear not only with a clause-linking device, but also with an optional standard negative marker. Moreover, there are languages in which standard negation is forbidden in the ‘let alone’ clause. Here it is shown that optional standard negation may be semantically empty or may have an expressive-evaluative layer of semantic interpretation. On the other hand, standard negation tends to be forbidden in ‘let alone’ clauses appearing with semantically monofunctional clause-linking devices. The paper further investigates whether the analysis advanced for ‘let alone’ clauses can be generalized to other semantically negative adverbial clauses: ‘without V-ing’, ‘instead of V-ing’, and ‘before’ clauses. It is demonstrated that in these latter adverbial clauses, standard negation may be forbidden or optional. Interestingly, unlike the situation with ‘let alone’ clauses, there are languages in which standard negation may be obligatory in the ‘without V-ing’, ‘instead of V-ing’, and ‘before’ clause. In this scenario, the adverbial relations are compositionally encoded by a standard negative marker together with a general marker.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45834,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Linguistic Typology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Linguistic Typology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2022-0066\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Linguistic Typology","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2022-0066","RegionNum":2,"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: 0

摘要

摘要 在分句连接的类型学研究中,有一种构式历来被忽视,那就是以 "更不用说 "为基础的构式(例如,婴儿甚至不会说话,更不用说走路了)。本研究以 47 种语言为样本,对这种结构进行了探讨。在这些语言中,"let alone "分句不仅带有分句连接装置,而且还带有可选的标准否定标记。此外,还有一些语言禁止在 "let alone "从句中使用标准否定。这里表明,可选的标准否定在语义上可能是空的,也可能具有语义解释的表达-评价层。另一方面,标准否定在 "let alone "句中往往是被禁止的,因为 "let alone "句中出现了语义上单一功能的分句连接装置。本文进一步研究了针对 "let alone "从句的分析是否可以推广到其他语义否定副词从句:"without V-ing"、"stead of V-ing "和 "before "从句。研究表明,在后一种副词从句中,标准否定可以是禁止的,也可以是可选的。有趣的是,与 "let alone "分句的情况不同,在有些语言中,"without V-ing"、"stead of V-ing "和 "before "分句中的标准否定可能是强制性的。在这种情况下,副词关系由一个标准否定标记和一个一般标记组成。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Semantically negative adverbial clause-linkage: ‘let alone’ constructions, expletive negation, and theoretical implications
Abstract One construction that has traditionally been neglected in the typological study of clause-linkage is that built on ‘let alone’ (e.g., the baby can’t even talk, let alone walk). The present study explores this construction in a convenience sample of 47 languages. There are languages in which ‘let alone’ clauses appear not only with a clause-linking device, but also with an optional standard negative marker. Moreover, there are languages in which standard negation is forbidden in the ‘let alone’ clause. Here it is shown that optional standard negation may be semantically empty or may have an expressive-evaluative layer of semantic interpretation. On the other hand, standard negation tends to be forbidden in ‘let alone’ clauses appearing with semantically monofunctional clause-linking devices. The paper further investigates whether the analysis advanced for ‘let alone’ clauses can be generalized to other semantically negative adverbial clauses: ‘without V-ing’, ‘instead of V-ing’, and ‘before’ clauses. It is demonstrated that in these latter adverbial clauses, standard negation may be forbidden or optional. Interestingly, unlike the situation with ‘let alone’ clauses, there are languages in which standard negation may be obligatory in the ‘without V-ing’, ‘instead of V-ing’, and ‘before’ clause. In this scenario, the adverbial relations are compositionally encoded by a standard negative marker together with a general marker.
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
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
5.00%
发文量
13
期刊介绍: Linguistic Typology provides a forum for all work of relevance to the study of language typology and cross-linguistic variation. It welcomes work taking a typological perspective on all domains of the structure of spoken and signed languages, including historical change, language processing, and sociolinguistics. Diverse descriptive and theoretical frameworks are welcomed so long as they have a clear bearing on the study of cross-linguistic variation. We welcome cross-disciplinary approaches to the study of linguistic diversity, as well as work dealing with just one or a few languages, as long as it is typologically informed and typologically and theoretically relevant, and contains new empirical evidence.
×
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