令人费解的应答粒子:德语应答系统的实验研究

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
B. Claus, A. Meijer, Sophie Repp, M. Krifka
{"title":"令人费解的应答粒子:德语应答系统的实验研究","authors":"B. Claus, A. Meijer, Sophie Repp, M. Krifka","doi":"10.3765/SP.10.19","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper addresses the use and interpretation of the German response particles ja , nein , and doch . In four experiments, we collected acceptability-judgement data for the full paradigm of standard German particles in responses to positive and negative assertions. The experiments were designed to test the empirical validity of two recent accounts of response particles, Roelofsen & Farkas (2015) and Krifka (2013), which view response particles as propositional anaphors. The results for responses to negative antecedents were unpredicted and inconsistent with either account. A further unexpected finding was that there was large interindividual variation in the acceptability patterns for affirming responses to negative antecedents to the extent that most speakers found ja more acceptable whereas some found nein more acceptable. We discuss possible revisions of the two accounts to model the findings, and explore in how far the findings can be accounted for in alternative, ellipsis accounts of response particles. \n \nEARLY ACCESS","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2017-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"17","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Puzzling response particles: An experimental study on the German answering system\",\"authors\":\"B. Claus, A. Meijer, Sophie Repp, M. Krifka\",\"doi\":\"10.3765/SP.10.19\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper addresses the use and interpretation of the German response particles ja , nein , and doch . In four experiments, we collected acceptability-judgement data for the full paradigm of standard German particles in responses to positive and negative assertions. The experiments were designed to test the empirical validity of two recent accounts of response particles, Roelofsen & Farkas (2015) and Krifka (2013), which view response particles as propositional anaphors. The results for responses to negative antecedents were unpredicted and inconsistent with either account. A further unexpected finding was that there was large interindividual variation in the acceptability patterns for affirming responses to negative antecedents to the extent that most speakers found ja more acceptable whereas some found nein more acceptable. We discuss possible revisions of the two accounts to model the findings, and explore in how far the findings can be accounted for in alternative, ellipsis accounts of response particles. \\n \\nEARLY ACCESS\",\"PeriodicalId\":1,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":16.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-12-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"17\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3765/SP.10.19\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"化学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3765/SP.10.19","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 17

摘要

本文讨论了德国响应粒子ja、nein和doch的使用和解释。在四个实验中,我们收集了标准德国粒子的完整范式对积极和消极断言的可接受性判断数据。这些实验旨在测试最近两种关于反应粒子的描述的经验有效性,Roelofsen&Farkas(2015)和Krifka(2013),他们将反应粒子视为命题回指。对负面前因的反应结果是不可预测的,与任何一种说法都不一致。另一个意想不到的发现是,对负面前因的肯定反应的可接受模式在个体间存在很大差异,以至于大多数说话者认为ja更容易被接受,而一些人则认为nein更容易接受。我们讨论了对这两种描述的可能修订,以对研究结果进行建模,并探讨了在反应粒子的替代省略描述中可以在多大程度上解释这些发现。早期访问
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Puzzling response particles: An experimental study on the German answering system
This paper addresses the use and interpretation of the German response particles ja , nein , and doch . In four experiments, we collected acceptability-judgement data for the full paradigm of standard German particles in responses to positive and negative assertions. The experiments were designed to test the empirical validity of two recent accounts of response particles, Roelofsen & Farkas (2015) and Krifka (2013), which view response particles as propositional anaphors. The results for responses to negative antecedents were unpredicted and inconsistent with either account. A further unexpected finding was that there was large interindividual variation in the acceptability patterns for affirming responses to negative antecedents to the extent that most speakers found ja more acceptable whereas some found nein more acceptable. We discuss possible revisions of the two accounts to model the findings, and explore in how far the findings can be accounted for in alternative, ellipsis accounts of response particles. EARLY ACCESS
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
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
×
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