罗曼语和日耳曼语的对比标记差异

IF 0.6 3区 文学 N/A LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS
C. Andorno, S. Benazzo, C. Dimroth
{"title":"罗曼语和日耳曼语的对比标记差异","authors":"C. Andorno, S. Benazzo, C. Dimroth","doi":"10.1075/fol.22018.and","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n In research on information structure and discourse cohesion, contrast has been defined in different ways,\n depending on the pragmatic/semantic relation established between the propositions involved in the contrast, on the text types and\n on other discourse conditions. As a whole, despite – or possibly because of – its vagueness, contrast has proved to be a useful\n heuristic tool for characterizing discourse cohesion phenomena. This paper focuses on results from our research concerning\n cohesion phenomena in elicited discourse in Romance (Italian, French) and Germanic (German, Dutch) languages and aims to offer a\n more precise characterization of contrast against several variation parameters. We take into consideration earlier work on three\n tasks (Finite Story, Polarity-Switch Dialogues, Map Task) and add a new one\n (Spot the Difference). The comparison between the results allows us to disentangle the following variables:\n information units involved in the contrast relation; discourse conditions (monologue vs. dialogue); speakers’ access to\n information (shared vs. non-shared); effect of contrast on information in the common ground (alternative maintained vs. rejected).\n The aim is to achieve a more fine-grained definition of contrast relations, which allows us to identify and characterize the\n divergent behavior of Romance and Germanic languages, and to relate intra- and crosslinguistic differences revealed by speakers’\n preferences in speech with structural specificities of the two language groups.","PeriodicalId":44232,"journal":{"name":"Functions of Language","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Contrast marking variation in Romance and Germanic languages\",\"authors\":\"C. Andorno, S. Benazzo, C. Dimroth\",\"doi\":\"10.1075/fol.22018.and\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n In research on information structure and discourse cohesion, contrast has been defined in different ways,\\n depending on the pragmatic/semantic relation established between the propositions involved in the contrast, on the text types and\\n on other discourse conditions. As a whole, despite – or possibly because of – its vagueness, contrast has proved to be a useful\\n heuristic tool for characterizing discourse cohesion phenomena. This paper focuses on results from our research concerning\\n cohesion phenomena in elicited discourse in Romance (Italian, French) and Germanic (German, Dutch) languages and aims to offer a\\n more precise characterization of contrast against several variation parameters. We take into consideration earlier work on three\\n tasks (Finite Story, Polarity-Switch Dialogues, Map Task) and add a new one\\n (Spot the Difference). The comparison between the results allows us to disentangle the following variables:\\n information units involved in the contrast relation; discourse conditions (monologue vs. dialogue); speakers’ access to\\n information (shared vs. non-shared); effect of contrast on information in the common ground (alternative maintained vs. rejected).\\n The aim is to achieve a more fine-grained definition of contrast relations, which allows us to identify and characterize the\\n divergent behavior of Romance and Germanic languages, and to relate intra- and crosslinguistic differences revealed by speakers’\\n preferences in speech with structural specificities of the two language groups.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44232,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Functions of Language\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Functions of Language\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.22018.and\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"N/A\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Functions of Language","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.22018.and","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"N/A","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在信息结构和语篇衔接的研究中,根据对比所涉及的命题之间建立的语用/语义关系、语篇类型和其他语篇条件,对比的定义有不同的方式。总的来说,尽管——或者可能正是因为——对比的模糊性,对比被证明是表征语篇衔接现象的一种有用的启发式工具。本文重点介绍了我们对罗曼语(意大利语、法语)和日耳曼语(德语、荷兰语)引申语篇衔接现象的研究结果,旨在通过几个变异参数对对比进行更精确的表征。我们考虑了之前的三个任务(Finite Story, polar - switch Dialogues, Map Task),并添加了一个新任务(Spot the Difference)。结果之间的比较使我们能够理清以下变量:对比关系中涉及的信息单位;话语条件(独白vs.对话);说话者对信息的获取(共享与非共享);对比对共同基础上的信息的影响(维持与拒绝的选择)。目的是对对比关系进行更精细的定义,从而使我们能够识别和描述罗曼语族和日耳曼语族的不同行为,并将说话者的言语偏好所揭示的语言内部和跨语言差异与两种语言群体的结构特异性联系起来。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Contrast marking variation in Romance and Germanic languages
In research on information structure and discourse cohesion, contrast has been defined in different ways, depending on the pragmatic/semantic relation established between the propositions involved in the contrast, on the text types and on other discourse conditions. As a whole, despite – or possibly because of – its vagueness, contrast has proved to be a useful heuristic tool for characterizing discourse cohesion phenomena. This paper focuses on results from our research concerning cohesion phenomena in elicited discourse in Romance (Italian, French) and Germanic (German, Dutch) languages and aims to offer a more precise characterization of contrast against several variation parameters. We take into consideration earlier work on three tasks (Finite Story, Polarity-Switch Dialogues, Map Task) and add a new one (Spot the Difference). The comparison between the results allows us to disentangle the following variables: information units involved in the contrast relation; discourse conditions (monologue vs. dialogue); speakers’ access to information (shared vs. non-shared); effect of contrast on information in the common ground (alternative maintained vs. rejected). The aim is to achieve a more fine-grained definition of contrast relations, which allows us to identify and characterize the divergent behavior of Romance and Germanic languages, and to relate intra- and crosslinguistic differences revealed by speakers’ preferences in speech with structural specificities of the two language groups.
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
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: Functions of Language is an international journal of linguistics which explores the functionalist perspective on the organisation and use of natural language. It encourages the interplay of theory and description, and provides space for the detailed analysis, qualitative or quantitative, of linguistic data from a broad range of languages. Its scope is broad, covering such matters as prosodic phenomena in phonology, the clause in its communicative context, and regularities of pragmatics, conversation and discourse, as well as the interaction between the various levels of analysis. The overall purpose is to contribute to our understanding of how the use of languages in speech and writing has impacted, and continues to impact, upon the structure of those languages.
×
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