18世纪荷兰语的概念和语用变化:属格及其竞争者的分布

IF 0.4 3区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY
A. Scott
{"title":"18世纪荷兰语的概念和语用变化:属格及其竞争者的分布","authors":"A. Scott","doi":"10.1080/03096564.2015.1136119","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article explores the influence of conceptuality on the distribution of four semantically equivalent possession-marking constructions in eighteenth-century Dutch: the prestigious genitive case (which was promoted in the prescribed norm but was decreasing in productivity at the time), as well as the (relatively) novel van-construction, possessive -s and periphrastic possessive. Comparing the division of labour between these constructions in private egodocuments and texts that were produced for publication, and viewing the findings in the context of contemporary language users’ everyday lives, the article reveals and analyses a complex picture of pragmatic variation. Even in the most norm-accordant texts, the prescribed genitive is never dominant. The egodocuments, which did not adhere strictly to the norm, display not only a productive use of the genitive, but also a noticeable rarity of the conceptually oral periphrastic possessive construction. This is attributed to the writers’ schooling and their familiarity with the written norm. It is concluded that conceptuality alone was not decisive in eighteenth-century language use, but also the mediality of the communication.","PeriodicalId":41997,"journal":{"name":"Dutch Crossing-Journal of Low Countries Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/03096564.2015.1136119","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Conceptuality and Pragmatic Variation in Eighteenth-Century Dutch: The Distribution of the Genitive Case and its Competitors\",\"authors\":\"A. Scott\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/03096564.2015.1136119\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT This article explores the influence of conceptuality on the distribution of four semantically equivalent possession-marking constructions in eighteenth-century Dutch: the prestigious genitive case (which was promoted in the prescribed norm but was decreasing in productivity at the time), as well as the (relatively) novel van-construction, possessive -s and periphrastic possessive. Comparing the division of labour between these constructions in private egodocuments and texts that were produced for publication, and viewing the findings in the context of contemporary language users’ everyday lives, the article reveals and analyses a complex picture of pragmatic variation. Even in the most norm-accordant texts, the prescribed genitive is never dominant. The egodocuments, which did not adhere strictly to the norm, display not only a productive use of the genitive, but also a noticeable rarity of the conceptually oral periphrastic possessive construction. This is attributed to the writers’ schooling and their familiarity with the written norm. It is concluded that conceptuality alone was not decisive in eighteenth-century language use, but also the mediality of the communication.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41997,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Dutch Crossing-Journal of Low Countries Studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-09-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/03096564.2015.1136119\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Dutch Crossing-Journal of Low Countries Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/03096564.2015.1136119\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dutch Crossing-Journal of Low Countries Studies","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03096564.2015.1136119","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:本文探讨了概念性对18世纪荷兰语中四种语义对等的所有格标记结构分布的影响:著名的属格(在规定的规范中得到推广,但当时的生产力正在下降),以及(相对)新颖的面包车结构、所有格-s和间接所有格。本文比较了这些结构在私人自我文件和出版文本中的劳动分工,并在当代语言使用者的日常生活中观察这些发现,揭示和分析了语用变化的复杂图景。即使在最符合规范的文本中,规定的属格也从来不是占支配地位的。没有严格遵守规范的自我文件,不仅显示了对属格的有效使用,而且还显示了概念口头间接所有格结构的明显罕见。这要归功于作家们所受的教育以及他们对书写规范的熟悉。结论是,在18世纪的语言使用中,概念性本身并不是决定性的,交流的中介性也起着决定性的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Conceptuality and Pragmatic Variation in Eighteenth-Century Dutch: The Distribution of the Genitive Case and its Competitors
ABSTRACT This article explores the influence of conceptuality on the distribution of four semantically equivalent possession-marking constructions in eighteenth-century Dutch: the prestigious genitive case (which was promoted in the prescribed norm but was decreasing in productivity at the time), as well as the (relatively) novel van-construction, possessive -s and periphrastic possessive. Comparing the division of labour between these constructions in private egodocuments and texts that were produced for publication, and viewing the findings in the context of contemporary language users’ everyday lives, the article reveals and analyses a complex picture of pragmatic variation. Even in the most norm-accordant texts, the prescribed genitive is never dominant. The egodocuments, which did not adhere strictly to the norm, display not only a productive use of the genitive, but also a noticeable rarity of the conceptually oral periphrastic possessive construction. This is attributed to the writers’ schooling and their familiarity with the written norm. It is concluded that conceptuality alone was not decisive in eighteenth-century language use, but also the mediality of the communication.
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
0.90
自引率
20.00%
发文量
6
×
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