220 likes | 362 Views
‘Relevance verbs in English, French and Dutch’. Bart Defrancq University College Ghent UCCTS2010, Edge Hill, 28 July 2010. Introduction verbs of relevance (Karttunen 1978; Lahiri 2002) matter & periphrastic forms verbs of indifference (Hoeksema 1994; Leuschner 2005, 2006)
E N D
‘Relevance verbs in English, French and Dutch’. Bart Defrancq University College Ghent UCCTS2010, Edge Hill, 28 July 2010
Introduction • verbs of relevance • (Karttunen 1978; Lahiri 2002) • matter &periphrastic forms • verbs of indifference • (Hoeksema 1994; Leuschner 2005, 2006) • bother, care, matter, mind &periphrastic forms • in common: govern embedded interrogatives, negation • different: origo-identification, argument- function mapping • here: bother,care, count, interest, matter, mind
Introduction • What makes them so… relevant for contrastive studies? • Interplay between pragmatic, semantic and syntactic properties of the verbs. • Differences between languages regarding the frequencies of these properties and their distribution over the lexical items. • EN: bother,care, count, interest, matter, mind • FR: compter, s’en foutre, s’en ficher, importer, intéresser • NL: geven, interesseren, schelen (2), tellen, (ertoe) doen, uitmaken
Introduction • (1) Maar het scheelt nu eenmaal of je tegen Portugal of Cyprus speelt. (TwNC) • (2) Het kan het publiek niet schelen wie ik ben. (TwNC)
Introduction • Data • EN: BNC (100.106) • FR: Le Monde, La Croix (2000) and Valibel (38.106) • NL: Twente Nieuws Corpus (42.106) • All occurrences of relevance verbs + embedded interrogative with wh-element in a span up to 9 words before and up to 5 words behind the verb. • EN: 2231 occ. • FR: 152 occ. • NL: 635 occ.
2. Properties 2.1. Pragmatics/semantics Relevance = property of linguistic stimuli, thoughts, internal representations (Wilson & Sperber 2004); the extent to which a linguistic stimulus or an internal representation allows the receiver to retrieve a positive cognitive effect through a process that is based on inferences (Sperber & Wilson 1986) > the lexical expression of relevance, i.e. the relevance verb, should present the linguistic stimulus, i.e. the embedded interrogative, as a premise for inferential processes.
2. Properties 2.1. Pragmatics/semantics (1) He said I neglected things, it didn't matter what I did it was never good enough. (BNC EG0) inference: I did some spectacular things that would have been good enough for normal people. compare with: (2) He said I neglected things, nothing of what I did was ever good enough.
2. Properties • 2.1. Pragmatics/semantics • Relevance involves: • a linguistic stimulus (mostly clausal form) • a receiver • Relevance verbs will have an argument structure composed of: • a subordinate clause • an experiencer or ‘origo’ (Leuschner 2005, 2006) • Origo may be omitted (when it is the speaker or communis opinio) • Both arguments can be mapped to subject and object (with or without a preposition)
2. Properties 2.2. Pragmatics/semantics Relevance is presupposed. Stating that something is relevant is therefore not informative (not relevant). Stating that something is not relevant is informative. > relevance verbs combine frequently with negation (Hoeksma 1994)
2. Properties 2.3. Pragmatics/syntax Relevance is presupposed. Relevance verbs used affirmatively tend to appear in sentence structures which mark them as presupposed: relative clauses of clefts.
2. Properties 2.4. The interplay relevance polarity argument structure arg/function mapping sentence structure
3. Results 3.1. Argument structure
3. Results • 3.1. Argument structure • significant difference between English on the one • hand and French and Dutch on the other; • individual verbs: sharp distinction between verbs that allow origo-identification and verbs that do not: • origo-identification origo-identification • in <2% of occ. in >98% of occ. • EN count matter bother, care, • interest, mind • FR compter importer s’en ficher, s’en foutre • intéresser • NL ertoe doen uitmaken interesseren, K schelen • schelen, tellen geven
3. Results 3.1. Argument structure
3. Results • 3.1. Argument structure • significant differences between the three languages: EN priviliges the mapping of the origo to the subject; NL seems barely to allow it. • individual verbs: • origo origo origo as • as subject as object subject of pass. • EN bother, care, bother, matter bother, interest • mind • FR s’en ficher, importer intéresser* • s’en foutre intéresser • NL geven* interesseren interesseren • K schelen • uitmaken
3. Results 3.2. Polarity
3. Results • 3.2. Polarity • significant differences between FR, on the one hand, and NL and EN on the other. Partly due to the existence of FR verbs that are inherently negative; partly also to ‘peu importe’ • individual verbs: • <15% positive < 15% negative • EN bother, care*, count, interest • matter, mind • FR importer* compter, s’en ficher* • s’en foutre*, importer*, • intéresser • NL geven, K schelen tellen schelen • ertoe doen, uitmaken interesseren
3. Results 3.3. Sentence structure
3. Results • 3.3. Sentence structure • same tendencies in all three languages: frequency of canonical structures higher when polarity is negative; no marked structures when polarity is negative. On the other hand, the languages differ a lot in the extent to which they use the canonical structures with positive polarity: English in less than 20% of the cases, Dutch in more than 50%.
3. Results • 3.3. Sentence structure • individual verbs: • unmarked unmarked unmarked • marked marked • passive • marked pass • EN bother, interest care, count* mind • matter • FR intéresser compter*, importer s’en foutre, • s’en ficher • NL interesseren K schelen, tellen geven, ertoe • doen, schelen, • uitmaken
4. Discussion 1. EN: - frequent origo-identification and preferential mapping to subject function; - predominantly used with negative polarity, strict divide between verbs regarding polarity; - strong association of sentence structure with polarity. 2. FR: - optional origo-identification either with subject or with object; - negative polarity uncommon: inherently negative verbs and use of quantifying adverbs; - correlation between sentence structure and polarity. 3. NL: - optional origo-identification and preferential mapping to object function; - predominantly used with negative polarity, but no strict divide between verbs regarding polarity; - correlation between sentence structure and polarity, but canonical structures are always preferred. Properties of relevance verbs or typical of the language?