Contraction of negatives as evidence of variance in register-specific interactive rules
Contraction of negatives as evidence of variance in register-specific interactive rules
复制标题
否定的收缩作为特定于寄存器的交互规则中差异的证据
DOI：
10.1017/s0954394500001770
复制
发表时间：
1997
影响因子：
1
通讯作者：
M. Yaeger
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Yaeger
摘要本研究通过对一个精心挑选的语篇和写作语料库中的否定词的缩略语进行研究，比较了各种语言和社会因素对缩略语的影响。证据表明，负收缩的条件是由interrupt和其他寄存器变量。从语用学和形态学的角度来看，否定收缩和辅助收缩是有区别的。虽然认知突出原则预测非收缩时，否定传达语义焦点信息，社会协议原则预测收缩。这是因为关注分歧会威胁到面子（因此，在会话分析术语中是“dispreferred”），而这通常是否定句传达的语义信息。这一假设是检查使用语料库不同沿着几个方面。其中最重要的（对本研究而言）似乎是中介语域与信息语域的维度（Finegan，1994）。数据从教学（研讨会演讲），对抗（政治辩论），和休闲的谈话材料进行了对比与可比的阅读风格的材料。预测了以下一般结果。认知突出原则将接管在信息背景下，当分歧是可以接受的或中性的。社会一致原则将在更多的不一致的情况下接管，其中分歧是不可接受的。研究结果对专注的学生、关注方言、语域和风格变异的社会语言学家，甚至是言语技术人员都有意义。
ABSTRACT This study investigates the contraction of negatives in a carefully chosen corpus of discourse and writing, to permit comparison of the relative influences of various linguistic and social parameters on contraction. Evidence is presented that negative contraction is conditioned by interactional and other register variables. The point is made that the pragmatic as well as morphological interpretation of negatives entails that negative contraction and auxiliary contraction should be distinguished from each other. Although a Cognitive Prominence Principle predicts noncontraction when the negative conveys semantically focal information, a Social Agreement Principle predicts contraction. This is because it would be face-threatening (and, therefore, in conversation analysis terms “dispreferred”) to focus on disagreement, which is most often the semantic information conveyed by negatives. This hypothesis is examined using corpora which differ along several dimensions. The most important of these (for this study) appear to be the interactional versus informational register dimensions (Finegan, 1994). Data from instructional (workshop presentations), confrontational (political debates), and casual conversational material are contrasted with comparable reading style materials. The following general results are predicted. The Cognitive Prominence Principle will take over in informational contexts when disagreement is acceptable or neutralized. The Social Agreement Principle will take over in more interactional contexts where disagreement is not acceptable. The results are of interest to the student of focus, the sociolinguist concerned with dialect, register, and style variation, and even the speech technician.