東華大學圖書館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

登入

回首頁

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

Form-Meaning Relations in Non-Canoni...

Kiss, Angelika,

FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Form-Meaning Relations in Non-Canonical Questions /

紀錄類型:	書目-電子資源 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	Form-Meaning Relations in Non-Canonical Questions // Angelika Kiss.
作者:	Kiss, Angelika,
面頁冊數:	1 electronic resource (296 pages)
附註:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 86-05, Section: A.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International86-05A.
標題:	Linguistics. -
電子資源:	https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=31483159
ISBN:	9798342757126

Form-Meaning Relations in Non-Canonical Questions /
Kiss, Angelika,

Form-Meaning Relations in Non-Canonical Questions /Angelika Kiss. - 1 electronic resource (296 pages)

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 86-05, Section: A.

This thesis discusses non-canonical questions, that is, questions that are used for a purpose other than simply a genuine request of information. Such questions are far more common in everyday language use than a language user may think. Of particular interest is the form of such utterance types. Non-canonical questions convey special meaning, and this special meaning is signaled by a special marked form. This markedness may reveal itself in their prosody or in the discourse particles that accompany these utterance types. Three question types are analyzed here: declarative questions, rhetorical questions, and adversative questions. For all three of them, I propose various subtypes. The basis of my claims comes from the form of these questions, which I observed in systematically collected empirical data. There are at least three main types of declarative questions: confirmative, mirative, and incredulous, all of which are distinguished in their prosody compared to each other in Hungarian and Russian. I propose that there are two types of rhetorical questions: ones that suggest a positive (non-null) and a negative (or empty set) answer, because they have found to be associated with distinct intonational contours in Mandarin and Cantonese. Lastly, I claim that adversative questions, too, differ based on the kind of adversativity they convey: some convey incredulity, while others are can convey surprise, and potentially disapproval. This seems to be determined by the meaning of the particular wh-phrase in the adversative question.None of these distinctions are novel. Various types of declarative questions have been identified in the literature before, though none of the accounts acknowledge all of the types. Rhetorical questions have been distinguished before (Rohde, 2006; Caponigro and Sprouse, 2007), too, and so have adversative questions (Kiss, 2017). The novum offered by this thesis is the claim that these distinctions are made at the level of semantics. The assumption I make is that if we see consistent distinctions in the form of an utterance type, then whatever distinction exists between their meaning is thereby considered 'encoded'; and if a meaning trait is encoded, it belongs to semantics. The distinction between various subtypes of declarative, rhetorical and adversative questions is hereby taken out of the pragmatic wastebin where it has been unjustly kept.

English

ISBN: 9798342757126Subjects--Topical Terms:

524476
Linguistics.
Subjects--Index Terms:

Biased questions

Form-Meaning Relations in Non-Canonical Questions /
LDR:03905nmm a22004573i 4500 001 2438980
005 20260727141647.5
006 m o d
007 cr|nu||||||||
008 261011s2024 miu||||||m |||||||eng d
020 $a 9798342757126
035 $a (MiAaPQD)AAI31483159
035 $a AAI31483159
040 $a MiAaPQD $b eng $c MiAaPQD $e rda
100 1 $a Kiss, Angelika, $e author. $0 (orcid)0000-0001-8064-3687 $3 3830444
245 1 0 $a Form-Meaning Relations in Non-Canonical Questions / $c Angelika Kiss.
264 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2024
300 $a 1 electronic resource (296 pages)
336 $a text $b txt $2 rdacontent
337 $a computer $b c $2 rdamedia
338 $a online resource $b cr $2 rdacarrier
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 86-05, Section: A.
500 $a Advisors: Ippolito, Michela Committee members: Moulton, Keir; Colantoni, Laura; Thomas, Guillaume.
502 $b Ph.D. $c University of Toronto (Canada) $d 2024.
520 $a This thesis discusses non-canonical questions, that is, questions that are used for a purpose other than simply a genuine request of information. Such questions are far more common in everyday language use than a language user may think. Of particular interest is the form of such utterance types. Non-canonical questions convey special meaning, and this special meaning is signaled by a special marked form. This markedness may reveal itself in their prosody or in the discourse particles that accompany these utterance types. Three question types are analyzed here: declarative questions, rhetorical questions, and adversative questions. For all three of them, I propose various subtypes. The basis of my claims comes from the form of these questions, which I observed in systematically collected empirical data. There are at least three main types of declarative questions: confirmative, mirative, and incredulous, all of which are distinguished in their prosody compared to each other in Hungarian and Russian. I propose that there are two types of rhetorical questions: ones that suggest a positive (non-null) and a negative (or empty set) answer, because they have found to be associated with distinct intonational contours in Mandarin and Cantonese. Lastly, I claim that adversative questions, too, differ based on the kind of adversativity they convey: some convey incredulity, while others are can convey surprise, and potentially disapproval. This seems to be determined by the meaning of the particular wh-phrase in the adversative question.None of these distinctions are novel. Various types of declarative questions have been identified in the literature before, though none of the accounts acknowledge all of the types. Rhetorical questions have been distinguished before (Rohde, 2006; Caponigro and Sprouse, 2007), too, and so have adversative questions (Kiss, 2017). The novum offered by this thesis is the claim that these distinctions are made at the level of semantics. The assumption I make is that if we see consistent distinctions in the form of an utterance type, then whatever distinction exists between their meaning is thereby considered 'encoded'; and if a meaning trait is encoded, it belongs to semantics. The distinction between various subtypes of declarative, rhetorical and adversative questions is hereby taken out of the pragmatic wastebin where it has been unjustly kept.
546 $a English
590 $a School code: 0779
650 4 $a Linguistics. $3 524476
650 4 $a Language. $3 643551
650 4 $a Rhetoric. $3 516647
650 4 $a Information science. $3 554358
653 $a Biased questions
653 $a Declarative questions
653 $a Inquisitive semantics
653 $a Interrogatives
653 $a Prosody
653 $a Rhetorical questions
690 $a 0290
690 $a 0723
690 $a 0679
690 $a 0681
710 2 $a University of Toronto (Canada). $b Linguistics. $e degree granting institution. $3 3830445
720 1 $a Ippolito, Michela $e degree supervisor.
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 86-05A.
790 $a 0779
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2024
856 4 0 $u https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=31483159