韩语中回答否定极性问题的变化:实验研究

IF 1.1 3区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS
Jong-Bok Kim , Jungsoo Kim , Yunju Nam
{"title":"韩语中回答否定极性问题的变化:实验研究","authors":"Jong-Bok Kim ,&nbsp;Jungsoo Kim ,&nbsp;Yunju Nam","doi":"10.1016/j.lingua.2024.103792","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>With respect to how to answer polar questions, languages are taken to employ either the polarity-based system (e.g., English) or the truth-based one (e.g., Japanese). This dichotomy, however, is challenged when speakers make use of different negation forms and contextual information, particularly when answering negative polar questions (NPQs). This study investigates how two negation forms (short-form and long-form) and contextual bias affect the way speakers answer NPQs in Korean. The acceptability judgment experiment we conducted in this study shows that contextual bias, interacting with the negation form, often overrides the two-way distinction of answering systems. The results imply that a proper description of the variations in the Korean answering system to NPQs requires tight interactions among various grammatical components, including the discourse structure, rather than a syntax-based account that resorts solely to the syntactic structures of negation forms involved.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47955,"journal":{"name":"Lingua","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Variations in answering negative polar questions in Korean: An experimental study\",\"authors\":\"Jong-Bok Kim ,&nbsp;Jungsoo Kim ,&nbsp;Yunju Nam\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.lingua.2024.103792\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>With respect to how to answer polar questions, languages are taken to employ either the polarity-based system (e.g., English) or the truth-based one (e.g., Japanese). This dichotomy, however, is challenged when speakers make use of different negation forms and contextual information, particularly when answering negative polar questions (NPQs). This study investigates how two negation forms (short-form and long-form) and contextual bias affect the way speakers answer NPQs in Korean. The acceptability judgment experiment we conducted in this study shows that contextual bias, interacting with the negation form, often overrides the two-way distinction of answering systems. The results imply that a proper description of the variations in the Korean answering system to NPQs requires tight interactions among various grammatical components, including the discourse structure, rather than a syntax-based account that resorts solely to the syntactic structures of negation forms involved.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47955,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Lingua\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Lingua\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0024384124001232\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"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":"Lingua","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0024384124001232","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: 0

摘要

关于如何回答极性问题,人们认为语言要么采用以极性为基础的系统(如英语),要么采用以真实性为基础的系统(如日语)。然而,当说话者使用不同的否定形式和语境信息时,尤其是在回答否定极性疑问句(NPQs)时,这种二分法就受到了挑战。本研究调查了两种否定形式(短否定形式和长否定形式)和语境偏差如何影响说话者回答韩语 NPQs 的方式。我们在本研究中进行的可接受性判断实验表明,语境偏差与否定形式相互作用,往往会压倒回答系统的双向区分。这些结果表明,要正确描述韩语回答 NPQs 系统的变化,需要包括话语结构在内的各种语法成分之间的紧密互动,而不是仅仅从否定形式的句法结构出发进行基于句法的解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Variations in answering negative polar questions in Korean: An experimental study

With respect to how to answer polar questions, languages are taken to employ either the polarity-based system (e.g., English) or the truth-based one (e.g., Japanese). This dichotomy, however, is challenged when speakers make use of different negation forms and contextual information, particularly when answering negative polar questions (NPQs). This study investigates how two negation forms (short-form and long-form) and contextual bias affect the way speakers answer NPQs in Korean. The acceptability judgment experiment we conducted in this study shows that contextual bias, interacting with the negation form, often overrides the two-way distinction of answering systems. The results imply that a proper description of the variations in the Korean answering system to NPQs requires tight interactions among various grammatical components, including the discourse structure, rather than a syntax-based account that resorts solely to the syntactic structures of negation forms involved.

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
Lingua
Lingua Multiple-
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
9.10%
发文量
93
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊介绍: Lingua publishes papers of any length, if justified, as well as review articles surveying developments in the various fields of linguistics, and occasional discussions. A considerable number of pages in each issue are devoted to critical book reviews. Lingua also publishes Lingua Franca articles consisting of provocative exchanges expressing strong opinions on central topics in linguistics; The Decade In articles which are educational articles offering the nonspecialist linguist an overview of a given area of study; and Taking up the Gauntlet special issues composed of a set number of papers examining one set of data and exploring whose theory offers the most insight with a minimal set of assumptions and a maximum of arguments.
×
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