不要为溢出或溢出的牛奶哭泣?:英语-ed和-t语义的语用差异

Tris Faulkner
{"title":"不要为溢出或溢出的牛奶哭泣?:英语-ed和-t语义的语用差异","authors":"Tris Faulkner","doi":"10.5539/ijel.v13n3p1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Modern English has a small set of verbs that show variability between the inflections -ed and ­-t as preterite and past participle morphemes (Peters et al., 2022; Quirk, 1970). Examples include: burn, spoil, spill, learn, dream, spell, smell, kneel, dwell, leap, and lean (Peters et al., 2022; Quirk, 1970). While -ed is thought to be the more prevalent form in U.S. Englishes, -t is more widespread in U.K. dialects of English (as related to both preterite and perfect forms) (Cambridge English Dictionary, 2023; HarperCollins, 2023). However, in spite of this difference being regularly deemed dialectal (Cambridge English Dictionary, 2023; HarperCollins, 2023), according to some scholars (e.g., Peters et al., 2022; Quirk, 1970), choice between one form or the other may carry semantic consequences. For instance, whereas -ed in participial contexts may be understood as representing imperfective actions, -t might be associated with perfectivity (Quirk, 1970). With this in mind, the present paper had as its objective to further explore the meaning differences that may come about with the use of either inflection. \n \nIn the sections to come, I add to the aforementioned discussion by pointing out that, in adjectival environments, the aspectual differences between the two can be analogized as the PLIANT and INTERRUPTIBLE (-ed) vs. the NON-COMPLIANT and TERMINAL (-t). I explain that, while -ed tends to be interpreted as being tied to modifiable or malleable events, -t is read as signaling those which are fixed or unyielding. The findings to be discussed are significant for several reasons: 1) they shed light on the contexts in which each inflected form may be preferred; 2) very few academic works acknowledge any differences, other than regional preference; and 3) to my knowledge, no previous scholarly article has focused on their uses in exclusively, adjectival environments.","PeriodicalId":91092,"journal":{"name":"International journal of English linguistics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Don’t Cry over Spilled or Spilt Milk?: Nuanced Semanto-Pragmatic Differences Between -ed and -t in English\",\"authors\":\"Tris Faulkner\",\"doi\":\"10.5539/ijel.v13n3p1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Modern English has a small set of verbs that show variability between the inflections -ed and ­-t as preterite and past participle morphemes (Peters et al., 2022; Quirk, 1970). Examples include: burn, spoil, spill, learn, dream, spell, smell, kneel, dwell, leap, and lean (Peters et al., 2022; Quirk, 1970). While -ed is thought to be the more prevalent form in U.S. Englishes, -t is more widespread in U.K. dialects of English (as related to both preterite and perfect forms) (Cambridge English Dictionary, 2023; HarperCollins, 2023). However, in spite of this difference being regularly deemed dialectal (Cambridge English Dictionary, 2023; HarperCollins, 2023), according to some scholars (e.g., Peters et al., 2022; Quirk, 1970), choice between one form or the other may carry semantic consequences. For instance, whereas -ed in participial contexts may be understood as representing imperfective actions, -t might be associated with perfectivity (Quirk, 1970). With this in mind, the present paper had as its objective to further explore the meaning differences that may come about with the use of either inflection. \\n \\nIn the sections to come, I add to the aforementioned discussion by pointing out that, in adjectival environments, the aspectual differences between the two can be analogized as the PLIANT and INTERRUPTIBLE (-ed) vs. the NON-COMPLIANT and TERMINAL (-t). I explain that, while -ed tends to be interpreted as being tied to modifiable or malleable events, -t is read as signaling those which are fixed or unyielding. The findings to be discussed are significant for several reasons: 1) they shed light on the contexts in which each inflected form may be preferred; 2) very few academic works acknowledge any differences, other than regional preference; and 3) to my knowledge, no previous scholarly article has focused on their uses in exclusively, adjectival environments.\",\"PeriodicalId\":91092,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International journal of English linguistics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International journal of English linguistics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v13n3p1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of English linguistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v13n3p1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

现代英语有一小部分动词,它们在作为前词词素和过去分词词素的屈折-ed和-t之间表现出可变性(Peters et al.,2022;Quirk,1970)。例子包括:燃烧、破坏、溢出、学习、做梦、拼写、气味、跪下、停留、跳跃和倾斜(Peters et al.,2022;Quirk,1970)。虽然-ed被认为是美国英语中更普遍的形式,但-t在英国英语方言中更为广泛(与预测试和完美形式有关)(剑桥英语词典,2023;哈珀柯林斯,2023)。然而,尽管这种差异通常被认为是方言性的(剑桥英语词典,2023;哈珀柯林斯,2023),根据一些学者的说法(例如,Peters等人,2022;Quirk,1970),在一种形式或另一种形式之间的选择可能会产生语义后果。例如,尽管-ed在分词语境中可以被理解为代表不完全动作,但-t可能与完成性有关(Quirk,1970)。考虑到这一点,本文的目的是进一步探索使用任何一种屈折可能产生的意义差异。在接下来的章节中,我补充了前面的讨论,指出在形容词环境中,两者之间的方面差异可以类比为PLIANT和INTERRUPTABLE(-ed)与NON-concompliant和TERMINAL(-t)。我解释说,虽然-ed倾向于被解释为与可修改或可延展的事件有关,但-t被解读为是固定或不可屈服的信号。将要讨论的发现之所以重要,有几个原因:1)它们揭示了每种屈折形式可能更受欢迎的背景;2) 除了地区偏好之外,很少有学术著作承认任何差异;3)据我所知,以前没有一篇学术文章专门关注它们在形容词环境中的用途。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Don’t Cry over Spilled or Spilt Milk?: Nuanced Semanto-Pragmatic Differences Between -ed and -t in English
Modern English has a small set of verbs that show variability between the inflections -ed and ­-t as preterite and past participle morphemes (Peters et al., 2022; Quirk, 1970). Examples include: burn, spoil, spill, learn, dream, spell, smell, kneel, dwell, leap, and lean (Peters et al., 2022; Quirk, 1970). While -ed is thought to be the more prevalent form in U.S. Englishes, -t is more widespread in U.K. dialects of English (as related to both preterite and perfect forms) (Cambridge English Dictionary, 2023; HarperCollins, 2023). However, in spite of this difference being regularly deemed dialectal (Cambridge English Dictionary, 2023; HarperCollins, 2023), according to some scholars (e.g., Peters et al., 2022; Quirk, 1970), choice between one form or the other may carry semantic consequences. For instance, whereas -ed in participial contexts may be understood as representing imperfective actions, -t might be associated with perfectivity (Quirk, 1970). With this in mind, the present paper had as its objective to further explore the meaning differences that may come about with the use of either inflection. In the sections to come, I add to the aforementioned discussion by pointing out that, in adjectival environments, the aspectual differences between the two can be analogized as the PLIANT and INTERRUPTIBLE (-ed) vs. the NON-COMPLIANT and TERMINAL (-t). I explain that, while -ed tends to be interpreted as being tied to modifiable or malleable events, -t is read as signaling those which are fixed or unyielding. The findings to be discussed are significant for several reasons: 1) they shed light on the contexts in which each inflected form may be preferred; 2) very few academic works acknowledge any differences, other than regional preference; and 3) to my knowledge, no previous scholarly article has focused on their uses in exclusively, adjectival environments.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信