TRA CỨU
Các bộ sưu tập
Skip Navigation Links.
Thư mục - Vốn tư liệu
The question of form in the forming of questions

The question of form in the forming of questions : The meaning and use of clefted wh-interrogatives in Swedish

 Brandtler, Johan.
 2019.
 p. 755-794 enk ISSN: 08683409
Nghiên cứu ngôn ngữCấu trúc câuUtteranceNgữ phápCâu hỏiSwedishWh-interrogativesComplex syntactic structure+ 1 từ khóa
Tác giả CN Brandtler, Johan.
Nhan đề The question of form in the forming of questions : The meaning and use of clefted wh-interrogatives in Swedish / Johan Brandtler.
Thông tin xuất bản 2019.
Mô tả vật lý p. 755-794
Tóm tắt This paper addresses the meaning and use of clefted wh-interrogatives (I-clefts) in Swedish. It is shown that I-clefts always relate immediately to the topic under discussion and serve to clarify a matter in relation to this topic. They are never used in out-of-the-blue contexts. I argue that I-clefts have the same information structure as typically assumed for declarative clefts: the clefted clause expresses an existential presupposition and the cleft phrase is the identificational focus of the utterance. I further argue that the implication of existence commonly associated with canonical argument questions is weaker (a conversational implicature) than the existential presupposition associated with clefts. The results from an extensive corpus survey show that argument I-clefts (who, what) constitute no less than 98% of the total number of I-clefts in my material. This frequency is linked to the presuppositional status of the cleft construction: in contexts where the denoted event is presupposed as part of the common ground, the clefted variety is the more effective choice, due to its clear partitioning of focus and ground. The ‘cost’ of using a more complex syntactic structure (the cleft) is thus counterbalanced by the benefit of being able to pose a question adjusted to the contextual requirements. As non-argument questions are typically presuppositional irrespective of syntactic form, the gain of using a cleft is less obvious – hence their infrequency in the material.
Thuật ngữ chủ đề Nghiên cứu ngôn ngữ-Tiếng Thụy Điển-TVĐHHN.
Từ khóa tự do Cấu trúc câu
Từ khóa tự do Utterance
Từ khóa tự do Ngữ pháp
Từ khóa tự do Câu hỏi
Từ khóa tự do Swedish
Từ khóa tự do Wh-interrogatives
Từ khóa tự do Complex syntactic structure
Từ khóa tự do Tiếng Thụy Điển
Nguồn trích Journal of Linguistics- Vol. 55, Issue 4/2019
MARC
Hiển thị đầy đủ trường & trường con
TagGiá trị
00000000nab a2200000 a 4500
00158419
0022
0044E8457E4-C36E-48AE-8933-8B2A2524E528
005202004131555
008160304s2019 vm| vie
0091 0
022[ ] |a 08683409
035[ ] |a 1456409409
039[ ] |a 20241129133243 |b idtocn |c 20200413155505 |d tult |y 20200403111856 |z thuvt
041[0 ] |a enk
044[ ] |a eng
100[0 ] |a Brandtler, Johan.
245[1 0] |a The question of form in the forming of questions : |b The meaning and use of clefted wh-interrogatives in Swedish / |c Johan Brandtler.
260[ ] |c 2019.
300[ ] |a p. 755-794
520[ ] |a This paper addresses the meaning and use of clefted wh-interrogatives (I-clefts) in Swedish. It is shown that I-clefts always relate immediately to the topic under discussion and serve to clarify a matter in relation to this topic. They are never used in out-of-the-blue contexts. I argue that I-clefts have the same information structure as typically assumed for declarative clefts: the clefted clause expresses an existential presupposition and the cleft phrase is the identificational focus of the utterance. I further argue that the implication of existence commonly associated with canonical argument questions is weaker (a conversational implicature) than the existential presupposition associated with clefts. The results from an extensive corpus survey show that argument I-clefts (who, what) constitute no less than 98% of the total number of I-clefts in my material. This frequency is linked to the presuppositional status of the cleft construction: in contexts where the denoted event is presupposed as part of the common ground, the clefted variety is the more effective choice, due to its clear partitioning of focus and ground. The ‘cost’ of using a more complex syntactic structure (the cleft) is thus counterbalanced by the benefit of being able to pose a question adjusted to the contextual requirements. As non-argument questions are typically presuppositional irrespective of syntactic form, the gain of using a cleft is less obvious – hence their infrequency in the material.
650[1 7] |a Nghiên cứu ngôn ngữ |x Tiếng Thụy Điển |2 TVĐHHN.
653[0 ] |a Cấu trúc câu
653[0 ] |a Utterance
653[0 ] |a Ngữ pháp
653[0 ] |a Câu hỏi
653[0 ] |a Swedish
653[0 ] |a Wh-interrogatives
653[0 ] |a Complex syntactic structure
653[0 ] |a Tiếng Thụy Điển
773[ ] |t Journal of Linguistics |g Vol. 55, Issue 4/2019
890[ ] |a 0 |b 0 |c 0 |d 0