|
Dòng
|
Nội dung
|
|
1
|
La construction à datif épistémique: une structure modale ou évldentielle? / Marleen Van Peteghem.
// Langages. 2014, Vol. 193. 2014p. 99-112. La « construction à datif épistémique » (cf. Je lui trouve du charme) est généralement décrite comme une structure de la prédication seconde. Cet article examine si les verbes qui entrent dans cette structure fonctionnent par rapport à la prédication seconde comme des marqueurs modaux épistémiques, comme le suggère le terme proposé par N. Ruwet (1982), ou plutôt comme des évidentiels. Une étude de corpus de six verbes représentatifs montre que la prédication première tend à jouer un rôle secondaire au niveau discursif. Elle fonctionne alors comme un marqueur évidentiel plutôt que modal exprimant la source d’un jugement subjectif ou d une perception personnelle, qui est souvent le locuteur mais pas nécessairement. Néanmoins, dans beaucoup d’autres cas, la prédication premièfre est également discursivement première et ne fonctionne alors pas comme un marqueur modal ou évidentiel.
|
|
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
|
传信范畴作为汉语会话话题生成的一种策略 = Evidentiality Used as a Strategy for Topic-Generating in Mandarin Conversation. / Yue Yao.
// 漢語學習 = Chinese Language Learning (Hanyu Xuexi) 2013, No.6. 2013.p. 3-17. Based on the overview of current studies on evidentiality and topic,we summarize the features of the conversational topic and three stages of topic-generating,as well as the definition and classification of evidentiality in Chinese.The approach of Conversation Analysis is adopted in this study to examine the behaviors and functions of evidentials in the three stages of topic-generating.By analyzing naturally occurring interaction materials,it is found that evidentiality is used as a strategy for topic-generating in mandarin conversation and the use of evidentials is a collaborative activity.The interface study of Chinese evidentiality and conversational-topic-generating has implication that the study of forms and meanings of language categories should be rooted in the naturally occurring data.
|
|
5
|
话语标记“怎么3”的多角度分析 = A Multi-angle Analysis on the Discourse Marker Zenme3. / Yin Hailiang.
// Language teaching and linguistic studies. 2014, No. 3.
// 语言教学与研究 2014, 第3卷 北京 : 北京语言大学语言研究所, 2014.45-54 p. The interrogative pronoun Zenme of Modern Chinese can not only be used to inquiry manners and reasons,but also be used as a discourse marker,which is conventionally called Zenme3.In this paper,the motivation of the existence of the Zenme3is discussed by observing the properties of being deleted,un-transforming and poor independence,the counter-expectation,evidentiality and semantic unknown properties are investigated,and an experimental support from the perspective of pronunciation and intonation is provided.Two sources of Zenme3,i.e.,displacement of Zenme2and further grammaticalization,and omission from complete clause are found.At last,the common grammatical characteristics of interrogative pronoun among some languages in the world from the perspective of linguistic typology are also discussed.
|
|
|
|
|