罗马尼亚语中经验使役句和DOM的几点注意

IF 0.1 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS
Rasprave Pub Date : 2022-07-29 DOI:10.31724/rihjj.48.1.14
Julie Goncharov, M. Irimia
{"title":"罗马尼亚语中经验使役句和DOM的几点注意","authors":"Julie Goncharov, M. Irimia","doi":"10.31724/rihjj.48.1.14","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper focuses on object experiencer (OE) causatives in Romanian, identifying a less discussed pattern of variation. The results of a pilot study indicate that for a class of speakers such predicates are not grammatical with an indefinite object, if the latter is not differentially marked. A second class of speakers can accept unmarked objects but only if access to direct evidence of the event is available. As these restrictions set aside OE causatives from physical causatives, a non-trivial question refers to the nature of this difference. An analysis is proposed that revolves around a pragmatic distinction between OE verbs and physical causatives. More precisely, insights put forward by pragmatic investigations of OE verbs have consolidated the observation, which we follow here, that these types of predicates presuppose a perception event in which the object of the asserted event is a perceiver. We further propose that the perception presupposition can be established in the context either by differential object marking (DOM), which has an independently motivated sentience feature, or by direct evidence. Subsequently, we also show that an analysis along these lines gives better results when addressing these types of splits against more general interactions between causatives, inanimate subjects and DOM; under previous accounts, the facts under discussion are either unpredicted or not straightforward to derive.","PeriodicalId":51986,"journal":{"name":"Rasprave","volume":"117 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Some Notes on Experiencer Causatives and DOM in Romanian\",\"authors\":\"Julie Goncharov, M. Irimia\",\"doi\":\"10.31724/rihjj.48.1.14\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper focuses on object experiencer (OE) causatives in Romanian, identifying a less discussed pattern of variation. The results of a pilot study indicate that for a class of speakers such predicates are not grammatical with an indefinite object, if the latter is not differentially marked. A second class of speakers can accept unmarked objects but only if access to direct evidence of the event is available. As these restrictions set aside OE causatives from physical causatives, a non-trivial question refers to the nature of this difference. An analysis is proposed that revolves around a pragmatic distinction between OE verbs and physical causatives. More precisely, insights put forward by pragmatic investigations of OE verbs have consolidated the observation, which we follow here, that these types of predicates presuppose a perception event in which the object of the asserted event is a perceiver. We further propose that the perception presupposition can be established in the context either by differential object marking (DOM), which has an independently motivated sentience feature, or by direct evidence. Subsequently, we also show that an analysis along these lines gives better results when addressing these types of splits against more general interactions between causatives, inanimate subjects and DOM; under previous accounts, the facts under discussion are either unpredicted or not straightforward to derive.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51986,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Rasprave\",\"volume\":\"117 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Rasprave\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31724/rihjj.48.1.14\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rasprave","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31724/rihjj.48.1.14","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"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

本文着重于罗马尼亚语中的客体体验(OE)使役,确定了一种较少讨论的变化模式。一项初步研究的结果表明,对于一类说话者来说,如果不确定对象没有区别标记,这样的谓词与不确定对象是不符合语法的。第二类说话者可以接受没有标记的物体,但只有在可以获得事件的直接证据的情况下。由于这些限制将原声使役与物理使役分开,一个重要的问题涉及到这种区别的本质。本文围绕原声动词和物理使役的语用区别进行分析。更准确地说,对英语动词的语用研究所提出的见解巩固了我们在这里遵循的观察结果,即这些类型的谓词预设了一个感知事件,其中断言事件的对象是感知者。我们进一步提出,可以通过具有独立动机的感知特征的差分对象标记(DOM)或直接证据在上下文中建立感知预设。随后,我们还表明,在处理这些类型的分裂时,沿着这些思路进行分析可以获得更好的结果,而不是使词、无生命主体和DOM之间更一般的相互作用;根据以前的说法,讨论中的事实要么是不可预测的,要么是无法直接推导出来的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Some Notes on Experiencer Causatives and DOM in Romanian
This paper focuses on object experiencer (OE) causatives in Romanian, identifying a less discussed pattern of variation. The results of a pilot study indicate that for a class of speakers such predicates are not grammatical with an indefinite object, if the latter is not differentially marked. A second class of speakers can accept unmarked objects but only if access to direct evidence of the event is available. As these restrictions set aside OE causatives from physical causatives, a non-trivial question refers to the nature of this difference. An analysis is proposed that revolves around a pragmatic distinction between OE verbs and physical causatives. More precisely, insights put forward by pragmatic investigations of OE verbs have consolidated the observation, which we follow here, that these types of predicates presuppose a perception event in which the object of the asserted event is a perceiver. We further propose that the perception presupposition can be established in the context either by differential object marking (DOM), which has an independently motivated sentience feature, or by direct evidence. Subsequently, we also show that an analysis along these lines gives better results when addressing these types of splits against more general interactions between causatives, inanimate subjects and DOM; under previous accounts, the facts under discussion are either unpredicted or not straightforward to derive.
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
Rasprave
Rasprave LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS-
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
50.00%
发文量
29
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
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