语法创新的天衣无缝:be going to 的案例(再探)

IF 0.6 2区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS
Nadine Dietrich
{"title":"语法创新的天衣无缝:be going to 的案例(再探)","authors":"Nadine Dietrich","doi":"10.1515/flin-2024-2004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, I revisit the continued debate surrounding manner of grammatical innovation, i.e. whether it is <jats:sc>abrupt</jats:sc> or <jats:sc>gradual</jats:sc>. I show that the debate is complicated by different diagnostics for manner and argue that it is best understood in terms of <jats:sc>degree of similarity (</jats:sc>how similar the innovative use is to existing uses of a construction). However, even when adopting degree of similarity as a diagnostic, approaches differ with regards to how similar they find innovative and existing uses. The <jats:sc>gradualness</jats:sc> account argues that innovative uses are similar but distinct from existing uses, as they imply a new form-meaning pairing. A <jats:sc>seamlessness</jats:sc> account instead argues that innovative and existing uses are so similar that no new form-meaning pairing is required. I develop seamlessness into a theoretical position for semantic innovation in grammaticalization, which holds that grammatical innovations are maximally similar to existing uses i.e. they exhibit considerable conceptual overlap and the existing use is semantically underspecified. Seamlessness is empirically tested using semantic innovations in <jats:italic>be going to</jats:italic> as a case study.","PeriodicalId":45269,"journal":{"name":"Folia Linguistica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The seamlessness of grammatical innovation: the case of be going to (revisited)\",\"authors\":\"Nadine Dietrich\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/flin-2024-2004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this paper, I revisit the continued debate surrounding manner of grammatical innovation, i.e. whether it is <jats:sc>abrupt</jats:sc> or <jats:sc>gradual</jats:sc>. I show that the debate is complicated by different diagnostics for manner and argue that it is best understood in terms of <jats:sc>degree of similarity (</jats:sc>how similar the innovative use is to existing uses of a construction). However, even when adopting degree of similarity as a diagnostic, approaches differ with regards to how similar they find innovative and existing uses. The <jats:sc>gradualness</jats:sc> account argues that innovative uses are similar but distinct from existing uses, as they imply a new form-meaning pairing. A <jats:sc>seamlessness</jats:sc> account instead argues that innovative and existing uses are so similar that no new form-meaning pairing is required. I develop seamlessness into a theoretical position for semantic innovation in grammaticalization, which holds that grammatical innovations are maximally similar to existing uses i.e. they exhibit considerable conceptual overlap and the existing use is semantically underspecified. Seamlessness is empirically tested using semantic innovations in <jats:italic>be going to</jats:italic> as a case study.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45269,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Folia Linguistica\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Folia Linguistica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2024-2004\",\"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":"Folia Linguistica","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2024-2004","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

在本文中,我重新探讨了围绕语法创新方式(即语法创新是突然的还是渐进的)的持续性争论。我指出,对语法创新方式的不同诊断使争论变得复杂,并认为最好从相似度(创新用法与结构的现有用法的相似程度)的角度来理解语法创新。然而,即使采用相似程度作为诊断标准,在创新使用与现有使用的相似程度方面,研究方法也各不相同。渐进说认为,创新用法与现有用法相似但不同,因为它们意味着新的形式-意义配对。而 "无缝性 "观点则认为,创新用途与现有用途非常相似,不需要新的形式-意义配对。我将无缝性发展为语法化中语义创新的一种理论立场,认为语法创新与现有用法具有最大程度的相似性,即它们表现出相当大的概念重叠,而且现有用法在语义上不够明确。无缝性是以be going to中的语义创新为案例进行实证检验的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The seamlessness of grammatical innovation: the case of be going to (revisited)
In this paper, I revisit the continued debate surrounding manner of grammatical innovation, i.e. whether it is abrupt or gradual. I show that the debate is complicated by different diagnostics for manner and argue that it is best understood in terms of degree of similarity (how similar the innovative use is to existing uses of a construction). However, even when adopting degree of similarity as a diagnostic, approaches differ with regards to how similar they find innovative and existing uses. The gradualness account argues that innovative uses are similar but distinct from existing uses, as they imply a new form-meaning pairing. A seamlessness account instead argues that innovative and existing uses are so similar that no new form-meaning pairing is required. I develop seamlessness into a theoretical position for semantic innovation in grammaticalization, which holds that grammatical innovations are maximally similar to existing uses i.e. they exhibit considerable conceptual overlap and the existing use is semantically underspecified. Seamlessness is empirically tested using semantic innovations in be going to as a case study.
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
Folia Linguistica
Folia Linguistica Multiple-
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
16.70%
发文量
43
期刊介绍: Folia Linguistica covers all non-historical areas in the traditional disciplines of general linguistics (phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics), and also sociological, discoursal, computational and psychological aspects of language and linguistic theory. Other areas of central concern are grammaticalization and language typology. The journal consists of scientific articles presenting results of original research, review articles, overviews of research in specific areas, book reviews, and a miscellanea section carrying reports and discussion notes. In addition, proposals from prospective guest editors for occasional special issues on selected current topics are welcomed.
×
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