|
Dòng
|
Nội dung
|
|
1
|
Đa nghĩa và cấu trúc tham tố cấu trúc cú pháp của vị từ trong tiếng Việt = Polysemy and argument structure, synactic structure of polysemous verbs in Vietnamese / Đậu Thành Vinh, Lê Kính Thắng.
// Ngôn ngữ và đời sống. 2015, Số 10 (240). 2015tr. 136-140 Polysemy is a widespread phenomenonb characterizing the majority of words, any theory of the representation of word meaning must be able to account for it. In Vietnamese, Polysemy verb can be a head of the different argument structures and syntactic structures. In Vietnamese, monovalency verbs, which are intransitive verbs, can be head of the structure of bivalency verbs and vice serva. The phenomenon reflect the interface between verb senses and argument structures and synatic structures that they play roles as the head. It is verb sense that plays the dicisive role how argument structure and syntactic structure, which it is the head, will be.
|
|
2
|
Marking imprecision, conveying surprise : Like between hedging and mirativity / The Journal of the Linguistics Association of Great Britain.
// Journal of Linguistics No.55 (2019) Britain : Cambridge University Press, 2019.p. 1-34. Mirative expressions, which mark surprising information (DeLancey 1997), are often expressed through linguistic forms that are also used to encode other, seemingly unrelated, meanings – e.g. evidential markers that mark lack of direct evidence (Turkish: Slobin & Aksu 1982, Peterson 2010; Cheyenne: Rett & Murray 2013; Cuzco Quechua: Faller 2002; Ostyak: Nikolaeva 1999; among others). In this paper, we show that the English particle like features a parallel polysemy between a mirative use and its better-known hedging use, which expresses weakened commitment to the strict denotation of a linguistic expression. After presenting several diagnostics that point to a genuine empirical difference between the hedging and mirative functions of like, we propose that both uses widen the size of a contextually restricted set, admitting elements that were previously excluded. More specifically, hedging like expands the set of ‘similar enough’ interpretations that we can apply to a linguistic expression in a context, including interpretations that we would normally consider to be too different from the context at hand. Mirative like, on the other hand, expands the set of worlds that we are willing to consider as candidates for the actual world in the conversation, resulting in the inclusion of worlds that interlocutors have previously ruled out due to perceived outlandishness. We therefore suggest that the two uses are best treated as sharing a common semantic kernel, deriving hedging and mirativity as effects of the particular type of object to which like applies.
|
|
3
|
Marking imprecision, conveying surprise: Like between hedging and mirativity / Emily A. Han Ink.
// Journal of Linguistics Vol. 55- Issue 1/2019 2019.p. 1-34. Mirative expressions, which mark surprising information (DeLancey 1997), are often
expressed through linguistic forms that are also used to encode other, seemingly unrelated,
meanings – e.g. evidential markers that mark lack of direct evidence (Turkish: Slobin
& Aksu 1982, Peterson 2010; Cheyenne: Rett & Murray 2013; Cuzco Quechua: Faller
2002; Ostyak: Nikolaeva 1999; among others). In this paper, we show that the English
particle like features a parallel polysemy between a mirative use and its better-known
hedging use, which expresses weakened commitment to the strict denotation of a linguistic
expression. After presenting several diagnostics that point to a genuine empirical difference
between the hedging and mirative functions of like, we propose that both uses widen the
size of a contextually restricted set, admitting elements that were previously excluded.
More specifically, hedging like expands the set of ‘similar enough’ interpretations that
we can apply to a linguistic expression in a context, including interpretations that we
would normally consider to be too different from the context at hand. Mirative like, on the
other hand, expands the set of worlds that we are willing to consider as candidates for the
actual world in the conversation, resulting in the inclusion of worlds that interlocutors have
previously ruled out due to perceived outlandishness. We therefore suggest that the two
uses are best treated as sharing a common semantic kernel, deriving hedging and mirativity
as effects of the particular type of object to which like applies.
|
|
4
|
Verbes modaux et enrlchlssement pragmatlque. / Louis de Saussure.
// Langages. 2014, Vol. 193. 2014p. 99-112. Cet article envisage les verbes modaux pouvoir et devoir comme conceptuels et non procéduraux- grammaticaux d’une part, mais surtout comme sous-déterminés sémantiquement et comme non polysémiques d’autre part, dans le sens de “polysémique” qui suppose une conventionnalisation des significations. Nous tentons de montrer que les effets de sens de ces verbes, qui ne peuvent pas se réduire à un des cas canoniques évoqués par la littérature, sont analysables par le biais d’inferences pragmatiques à partir d’une notion sous-déterminée de “possibilité” ou de “nécessité”.
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
|
|