ε#5670. ʤѸˤñʣζ̤Ρ --- Mond ǤμȲ ([2024-10-24-1]) ǡ (negation) Ǹ˽ФޤˤȤϲϤ礭Ǥؤůؤ뤳ȤǤޤǤϸؤδ˹ʤޤ
ؤѸ켭ŵ뤳ȤϤޤ礦ޤ Crystal (323--24) Ѥޤ
negation (n.) A process or construction in GRAMMATICAL and SEMANTIC analysis which typically expresses the contradiction of some or all of a sentence's meaning. In English grammar, it is expressed by the presence of the negative particle (neg, NEG) not or n't (the CONTRACTED negative); in LEXIS, there are several possible means, e.g. PREFIXES such as un-, non-, or words such as deny. Some LANGUAGES use more than one PARTICLE in a single CLAUSE to express negation (as in French ne . . . pas). The use of more than one negative form in the same clause (as in double negatives) is a characteristic of some English DIALECTS, e.g. I'm not unhappy (which is a STYLISTICALLY MARKED mode of assertion) and I've not done nothing (which is not acceptable in STANDARD English). . . .
A topic of particular interest has been the range of sentence STRUCTURE affected by the position of a negative particle, e.g. I think John isn't coming v. I don't think John is coming: such variations in the SCOPE of negation affect the logical structure as well as the semantic analysis of the sentence. The opposite 'pole' to negative is POSITIVE (or AFFIRMATIVE), and the system of contrasts made by a language in this area is often referred to as POLARITY. Negative polarity items are those words or phrases which can appear only in a negative environment in a sentence, e.g. any in I haven't got any books. (cf. *I've got any books).
Bussmann (323) ѤޤؤˤФƸؤΤ褦˲⤷Ƥޤ
In contrast with logical negation, natural language negation functions not only as sentence negation, but also primarily as clausal or constituent negation: she did not pay (= negation of predication), No one paid anything (= negation of the subject NP), he paid nothing (= negation of the object NP). Here the scope (= semantic coverage) of negation is frequently polysemic or dependent on the placement of negation, on the sentence stress . . . as well as on the linguistic and/or extralinguistic context. Natural language negation may be realized in various ways: (a) lexically with adverbs and adverbial expressions (not, never, by no means), indefinite pronouns (nobody, nothing, none), coordinating conjunctions (neither . . . nor), sentence equivalents (no), or prepositions (without, besides); (b) morphologically with prefixes (in + exact, un + interested) or suffix (help + less); (c) intonationally with contrastive accent (in Jacob is not flying to New York tomorrow the negation can refer to Jacob, flying, New York, or tomorrow depending which elements are stressed); (d) idiomatically by expressions like For all I care, . . . . Formally, three types of negation are differentiated: (a) internal (= strong) negation, the basic type of natural language negation (e.g. The King of France is not bald); (b) external (= weak) negation, which corresponds to logical negation (e.g. It's not the case/it's not true that p); (c) contrastive (= local) negation, which can also be considered a pragmatic variant of strong negation to the degree that stress and the corresponding modifying clause are relevant to the scope of the negation (e.g. The King of France is not bald, but rather wears glasses. The linguistic description of negation has proven to be a difficult problem in all grammatical models owing to the complex interrelationship of syntactic, prosodic, semantic, and pragmatic aspects.
2Ĥβ˴Ťơؤˤ˴ؤվȼΤ褦ˤʤǤ礦
1. μϰ
ʸ (sentence negation)
(clausal negation)
(constituent negation)
2. μ¸ͼ
Ū (lexically): 졤̾졤³졤ֻʤ
Ū (morphologically): Ƭ
Ū (intonationally): оȥ
Ū (idiomatically): ɽ
3. ηŪʬ
Ūʶ (internal/strong negation)
Ūʼ夤 (external/weak negation)
оŪʶɽŪ (contrastive/local negation)
4. κѰ (scope)
꼭ΰ֤ˤƶ
ʸˤƶ
ŪŪʸ̮ˤƶ
5. 2 (double negative)
ɸѸǤλ
ʸŪͭɸʹɽȤƤλ
6. (polarity)
(positive/affirmative) vs. (negative)
7. ˴ؤŪΧỤ̄ŪŪ¦̤ʣߴط
8. Ūΰ㤤
ΰϡʣ¿ƤޤƤꡤȴʤʤǤ
Crystal, David, ed. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. 6th ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2008. 295--96.
Bussmann, Hadumod. Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics. Trans. and ed. Gregory Trauth and Kerstin Kazzizi. London: Routledge, 1996.
ε#5457. ᤰ ([2024-04-05-1]) ³̤θѸ켭ŵ (subject) ιܤƤߤ褦Crystal Ѹ켭ŵѤ롥
subject (n.) (S, sub, SUB, Subj, SUBJ) A term used in the analysis of GRAMMATICAL FUNCTIONS to refer to a major CONSTITUENT of SENTENCE or CLAUSE structure, traditionally associated with the 'doer' of an action, as in The cat bit the dog. The oldest approaches make a twofold distinction in sentence analysis between subject and PREDICATE, and this is still common, though not always in this terminology; other approaches distinguish subject from a series of other elements of STRUCTURE (OBJECT, COMPLEMENT, VERB, ADVERBIAL, in particular. Linguistic analyses have emphasized the complexity involved in this notion, distinguishing, for example, the grammatical subject from the UNDERLYING or logical subject of a sentence, as in The cat was chased by the dog, where The cat is the grammatical and the dog the logical subject. Not all subjects, moreover, can be analyzed as doers of an action, as in such sentences as Dirt attracts flies and The books sold well. The definition of subjects in terms of SURFACE grammatical features (using WORD-ORDER or INFLECTIONAL criteria) is usually relatively straightforward, but the specification of their function is more complex, and has attracted much discussion (e.g. in RELATIONAL GRAMMAR). In GENERATIVE grammar, subject is sometimes defined at the NP immediately DOMINATED by S. While NP is the typical formal realization of subject, other categories can have this function, e.g. clause (S-bar), as in That oil floats on water is a fact, and PP as in Between 6 and 9 will suit me. The term is also encountered in such contexts as RAISING and the SPECIFIED-SUBJECTION CONDITION.
ѡȤ McArthur εҤȽŤʤäƤʬ⤢뤬 Crystal εҤϡäΩĸ˱Ƽªۤʤ뤳Ȥ褯ʬ롥طʸˡǤϼβ̤ǽܤƤꡤʸˡǤϤ⤽ȤѸѤʤ餿ƼȤʸˡ˴ŤˤѸǤꡤƤδˤøŬڤ餳ѤƤΤȤȤʬ롥
Crystal, David, ed. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. 6th ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2008. 295--96.
ε#5456. Ȥϲ ([2024-04-04-1]) ˰³ (subject) ˤĤƤܼŪʵꤿ˺ݤޤѸ켭ŵʤɤäƤߤΤɤMcArthur ιܤѤ褦פƤ롥
SUBJECT [13c: from Latin subjectum grammatical subject, from subiectus placed close, ranged under]. A traditional term for a major constituent of the sentence. In a binary analysis derived from logic, the sentence is divided into subject and predicate, as in Alan (subject) has married Nita (predicate). In declarative sentences, the subject typically precedes the verb: Alan (subject) has married (verb) Nita (direct object). In interrogative sentences, it typically follows the first or only part of the verb: Did (verb) Alan (subject) marry (verb) Nita (direct object)? The subject can generally be elicited in response to a question that puts who or what before the verb: Who has married Nita?---Alan. Where concord is relevant, the subject determines the number and person of the verb: The student is complaining/The students are complaining; I am tired/He is tired. Many languages have special case forms for words in the subject, the subject requires a particular form (the subjective) in certain pronouns: I (subject) like her, and she (subject) likes me.
Kinds of subject. A distinction is sometimes made between the grammatical subject (as characterized above), the psychological subject, and the logical subject: (1) The psychological subject is the theme or topic of the sentence, what the sentence is about, and the predicate is what is said about the topic. The grammatical and psychological subjects typically coincide, though the identification of the sentence topic is not always clear: Labour and Conservative MPs clashed angrily yesterday over the poll tax. Is the topic of the sentence the MPs or the poll tax? (2) The logical subject refers to the agent of the action; our children is the logical subject in both these sentences, although it is the grammatical subject in only the first: Our children planted the oak sapling; The oak sapling was planted by our children. Many sentences, however, have no agent: Stanley has back trouble; Sheila is a conscientious student; Jenny likes jazz; There's no alternative; It's raining
Pseudo-subjects. The last sentence also illustrates the absence of a psychological subject, since it is obviously not the topic of the sentence. This so-called 'prop it' is a dummy subject, serving merely to fill a structural need in English for a subject in a sentence. In this respect, English contrasts with languages such as Latin, which can omit the subject, as in Veni, vidi, vici (I came, I saw, I conquered: with no need for the Latin pronoun ego, I). Like prop it, 'existential there' in There's no alternative is the grammatical subject of the sentence, but introduces neither the topic nor (since there is no action) the agent.
Non-typical subjects. Subjects are typically noun phrases, but they may also be finite and non-finite clauses: 'That nobody understands me is obvious'; 'To accuse them of negligence was a serious mistake'; 'Looking after the garden takes me several hours a week in the summer.' In such instances, finite and infinitive clauses are commonly post and anticipatory it takes their place in subject position: 'It is obvious that nobody understands me'; 'It was a serious mistake to accuse them of negligence.' Occasionally, prepositional phrases and adverbs function as subjects: 'After lunch is best for me'; 'Gently does it.'
Subjectless sentences. Subjects are usually omitted in imperatives, as in Come here rather than You come here. They are often absent from non-finite clauses ('Identifying the rioters may take us some time') and from verbless clauses ('New filters will be sent to you when available'), and may be omitted in certain contexts, especially in informal notes (Hope to see you soon) and in coordination (The telescope is 43 ft long, weighs almost 11 tonnes, and is more than six years late).
ܤνФɸŪȤäƤ褯褽ʸˡŪʴγǰƳƤ롥ζ̤˻ϤޤꡤŪŪҲ𤵤롥
Ǥϡ줬ʸˡŪʴΤߤʤ餺ŪŪʴȤ館Ȥơ̤Υ뤬롥Ūʴϡ֥ơޡסŪʴϡưιټԡפбΤʤΤ⤫롥¤ʸƤϤƤߤȡ3Ĥδμ줬ɬߤ˰פʤȤ롥
³ơŪʼ졤ߡμȸƤФΤҲ𤵤롥Ǥ there is ¸ʸ (existential_sentence) ڤ롥ιʸǤ there ϥơޤǤϤꤨʤưιټԤǤʤΤǡޤʸˡΤᤵƤȤߤʤۤʤ
̾̾ʳ쥫ƥȤΩȤ꤬Ƴ줿ȡǸ˼줬ʤʤ뤤ϾάƤ㤬롥
ۤˤ͡ϵ줽ϼϤˤޤǡ
McArthur, Tom, ed. The Oxford Companion to the English Language. Oxford: OUP, 1992.
331ۿ YouTube ֤Τۤإͥ219ϡָŤʸˡʸˡThere is ʸޤ狼ꤷƤäƤޤܥͥȤƤϡ4֤ǻİ3100ۤȤʤꡤŪ¿İƤ褦Ǥ꤬Ȥޤ
There is a book on the desk. Τ褦¸ʸ (existential_sentence) ˤ there ϡ̣Ūˤ϶¤ǤʸˡŪˤϼǤ뤫Τ褦ʿޤa book ϲϤƤ뤫С줳Ǥ뤳ȤǤޤ be ưȿΰפǤ⡤a book Τۤ餷ΤǤϤʤȵǤǤ
ޤΤ褦˼Ƥ (subject) ȤϡäʤΤǤ礦ͤϤƬ뤰뤷Ƥޤ¸ʸμꡤӡּפȤѸ˴ؤƤϡheldio Ǥ夲Ƥޤ
#1003. There is an apple on the table. --- Ϥɤ졩
#1032. ʤ subject ּס --- ֤إ饸פΥԥ졼
hellog Ǥ⡤¸ʸ˴ϢϰʲεǼ夲Ƥޤ
#1565. existential there ε (1) ([2013-08-09-1])
#1566. existential there ε (2) ([2013-08-10-1])
#4473. ¸ʸˤμỌ̇̄μ ([2021-07-26-1])
Ȥϲñ˲褹ǤϤޤҳˤͤƤС
ī Voicy ֱѸθ츻ȤˤĤ饸 (heldio)פۿ#1022. ȡȥ --- khelf ĹڤθơޡǤˤ tautology Ȥϲ"A is A" Τ褦ʰ츫̵̣ʷʤ¸ߤʤФ̣ͭȤʤΤˤĤƤϡkhelfʷѸ˥ե˲ĹڵȤȤ˺äȸƤƤͽǤϤƬФȤݤǤۿǤҤİС
ȡȥˤĤƤϡhellog Ǥϡ#4851. tautology ([2022-08-08-1]) ȤƤǤƳƤޤϱѸ켭ѸΥȡȥλĤƤߤޤ
a beginner who has just started
free gift
He lives alone by himself.
hear with one's ears
helpful assistance
necessary essentials
new innovation
real truth
She is dumb and can not speak.
speak all at once together
the modern university of today
The money should be adequate enough.
They spoke in turn, one after the other.
This candidate will win or not win.
very excellent
widow woman
̣ѡʤɤδ͡ʬǤǤΤˤäƤ periphrasis ʱˡˡpleonasm ʾˡˡredundancy ʾĹˡrepetition ʷ֤ˤʤɤȸƤѤۤŬڤʻ⤢ꤽǤޤͷ (word_play) ȤطƤǤ
ˤäƥȡȥμϰۤʤΤ̸ˤȡȥεȯãϡȡȥθŪǽϡ椬Ƥ֡ꤷΤơޤǤ
Ѹˤ̾ (indefinite_pronoun) (indefinite determiner) ȤηϤ롥 (indefinite) ȿФ (definite) Ǥ롥㤨п;̾졤Ƶ̾졤ͭ̾졤ؼ̾졤ƤȤ˵̾ˤŪǤǧ뤬̾ˤϤ줬ߤʤ̾졦ϡषŪ顤ŪǤ (quantitative) ȤȤ館Ƥ褤⤷ʤŪ (universal) ʬŪ (partitive) ȤǤ롥
Quirk et al. (6.45) ˼פ̾졦ΰɽ롥Ǻܤ褦ηŪǤϤ뤬ʤʤʣʸǤ뤳Ȥ狼
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman, 1985.
tautology ȿȡȥˤϡޤäƽ (rhetoric) ѸȤȯŸƤꥷ tautó (the same) + lógos (word) ˵ƥФơ16ȾФ˱Ѹ˼Ѥ줿ʲؿѸؼŵ٤ tautology ιܤ˽äƳͿ롥
ؤǤϾˡ (pleonasm) ŸƱѤ (cf. #2191. ȥåΤޤȤ ([2015-04-27-1]))㤨 a philatelist who collects stamps, These words come out successively one after another., Will you repeat that again? तɽ#3907. ѸνŸ ([2020-01-07-1]) 㤬Ƥ뤬ۤŪǴŪʸˡȤȤǤ⤢롥
tautology ιʸŵ "A is A." ȤǤ롥̣ˤС쳵ǰΤʤˤǤ˽Ҹ쳵ǰޤޤƤޤäƤ뤿ˡդʤȤˤʤꡤθ¤ˤʸϡ̵̣פȤʤ롥̤γ٤餤Сιʸϰ̣Ū˾˿Ȥʤ롥"A is A." Τۤ Philatelists collect stamps., The man who won won., Lynda loves the boy she loves. Τ褦ʹʸ⤢롥ʬʸ (analytic sentence) ȸƤФ뤳Ȥ롥
tautology ϰ̣Ūˤо嵭̵̤̣פŪˤɬ̵̣ǤϤʤष˭ʴްդ߽ФȤ롥Philatelists collect stamps. ξ硤philatelist ڼȡˤŪñǤꡤñΰ̣뤿ˡʸȯƤǽ롥ޤThe man who won won. ˤĤƤϡϤ餫տޤȯƤΤ⤷ʤ
Ǥϡtautology Grice ζĴθ (cooperative_principle) ΤȤ뤳Ȥ¿tautology ȯüԤĴθưȿ褦ȤƤ櫓ǤϤʤȽǤΤǤСʹϤ tautology ˱줿̣տޤФȤƲ餫δްդ߽ФΤǤ롥
tautology ϰ̣Ūˤ̵̣ǤäƤŪˤϤФ̣ͭȤʤ롥ԻĤtautology ǧθؤܤʤ
Ϣơ#1122. Ĵθ ([2012-05-23-1])#1133. Ĵθι ([2012-06-03-1])#1134. ĴθˤȤ ([2012-06-04-1]) ȡ
ʸͺʴƽˡؿѸؼŵ١ҡ1982ǯ
ε#4652. any ֤ɤ?Ǥפɽ碌褦 either ϡ֤?Ǥפɽ碌 ([2022-01-21-1]) Ǥ⤹Ǥ˼夲ޤɸܲΥߤ濴Ȥ khelf (= Keio History of the English Language Forum) Сδ֤ǮоݤȤʤäƤǤ
either ϡ2ԤΤΤ줫֡פΰ̣ɽ魯ȤȻפޤ¤ϡξפΰ̣ɽ魯⤢ȤǤ contronym Ȥޤ
إѥ¼ŵ٤ either ꡤ줾б1ȸ2Ѥޤ礦
--- ʷˡñ̾ˤĤơ
(1) 2ġ2͡ϤΤˤɤ餫ʰˤΡɤΡĤǤ⡤ɤǤǤդ
Take either apple.äɤ餫Τʤ
You may invite either boy.äɤξǯԤƤ빽Ǥ
. . . .
(3) ɤΡĤ⡤ξ
There was a chair at either end of the long table.Ĺơ֥ξüˤ줾줤֤Ƥ
ʸˡ3ΰ̣Ǥä side, end, hand ʤФɽ魯̾Ѥ뤬Τ褦 bothʡʣ̾ˤ eachʡñ̾ˤѤ뤳Ȥ¿both ϡξפƱˤޤȤơeither, each ϡ Ĥ줾̤ª봶Ȥʤ
There were chairs at both ends of the long table.
There was a chair at each end of the long table.
either A or B Ȥ٤ɽޤ̤ˤ (1) either θªƤȻפޤŪˤߤжäȤ (3) ΤۤŤΤǤOED ˤС(3) ϸűѸ줫̤˸Ǥ(1) ѸˤʤäƤ褦䤯뿷Ǥ
ɤƤʤȤˤʤäƤޤäΤǤ礦褯֤ outher ȤȤ䤳ط˴٤äƤޤäȤ𤬤褦ǤϢơ#945. either 2Ĥȯ ([2011-11-28-1]) ⤴Ȥ
Any child can do that. Ȥʸϡ֤ɤʻҶǤ⤽줬Ǥפΰդɽ路ޤ֤ϰۤʤޤŪʰ̣ȤƤ All children can do that. Ȥ褽ƱǤ
ʿŪޤEither way will do. Ȥʸϡ֤ΤǤ⤦ޤԤޤפΰդɽ路ޤ֤ϰۤʤޤŪʰ̣ȤƤ Both ways will do . Ȥ褽ƱǤ
ä2Ĥ either both ѤʸڥƱѤȤΤϡʤʤζäǤϤʤǤ礦ȤΤϡ䤿 either (A or B) both (A and B) еɽǤȿޤƤǤ2Ĥʸ̮ˤäƤϤषɽȤ٤ΤˤʤΤǤ
either ϡ̤ˤ2ĤΤΡ֤줫סҰפ̣Ƥޤ¤ϡ֤ΡǤʤ褤ˡפȤϢϡ֡ξǤäƤʤ褤ˡפβޤؤȤǤСor ˤϡ¾Ū (exclusive disjunction) ȡ¾Ū (inclusive disjunction) ξ뤳ȤǤ礦
ȤȤǡ¿Υ˥奢ΰ㤤Ϥʤ⡤either both ǥѥե졼ǤƤޤΤǤ㤨Сȡ
Unfortunately I was sitting at the table with smokers on either side of me.
Unfortunately I was sitting at the table with smokers on both sides of me.
either vs both ΰ̣Ūĥطϡany vs all ζĥطȥѥǤԤ2ĤΤΤˤĤơԤ3İʾΤΤˤĤơȤ㤤Ǥ (cf. Quirk et al. 6.61ˡСԤϰ̣Ūξ뤤п (dual) äƤȤȤǤ
οƥνפʥСäξϡѸˤⲽŪʷǤϤޤ˺פĤƤޤboth, either, neither, other, whether ʤ -er ĤΤ¿Ǥ (cf. #3005. or θ츻 ([2017-07-19-1]))
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman, 1985.
Ϣ#4426. hedge ([2021-06-09-1]) ȡ#4427. ͡ hedge ӴϢɽ ([2021-06-10-1]) Τ褦 hedge 夲Ƥ롥 Lakoff ʸȤƹͻ³
ʸɤ hedge ѤäƤεκǸǤҤ٤ñʤ֤ܤաפǤϤʤ֤̿餷ˤꡦ¤άפ٤ʤȤ Lakoff ιͤ hedge ϤΤ褦ʤΤ餷ȡɬŪ˰̣̤˹äƤȤˤʤ̣˴ؤ븡ڼȤůؤˤĤʤäƤ
hedge prototype οط餫ˤʤä㤨Сsort of Ȥ hedge ϡץȥפ龯æΤƤ˺Ѥ̣ΡִؿפȤߤ뤳ȤǤ롥ºݡLakoff ϥե Lofti Zadeh θꥤԥ졼ءŪʴؿѤ tall, very tall, sort of tall, pretty tall, rather tall ΰ̣ʬϤԤʤäƤ롥Lakoff ʸ (482) ꡤʲοޤƤ餤

οޤθϼ̤֤ͤ tall, very tall, sort of tall, pretty tall, rather tall ǤפȤ꤬̿硤ºݤˤɤ줯餤ؤι⤵ǤС̿ϿǤȹͤ뤫ˤĤ¿οͤ˥Ȥä̤Υޥɤ롥Ĥޤꡤ5'3" 5ե3160cmˤ tall ȤߤʤԤϤۤ0%6'3" 6ե3190cmˤǤФۤ100%βԤ tall ʷƻȤߤʤ6'3" ǤСvery tall Ǥ100%˶ᤤ⤤ͤrather tall 6'3" ФƤϡäŬڤɽȽǤ
פˡ5ɽФ줿ƶηɽ hedge ȤƤθ̤Ǥ롤ȲǤ롥϶Ǥ뤫顤ŪˤϴؿȤɽǤ뤳Ȥˤʤ롥 Lakoff ȤƲ餫Ϳ̩ʰ̣ǤδؿΩܻؤƤ櫓ǤϤʤΤhedge prototype δط褯ʬͤǤϤ롥
ˤĤ Lakoff Ȥ (492--93) ѤƤ
6.5. Algebraic Functions Play a Role in the Semantics of Certain Hedges
Hedges like SORT OF, RATHER, PRETTY, and VERY change distribution curves in a regular way. Zadeh has proposed that such changes can be described by simple combinations of a small number of algebraic functions. Whether or not Zadeh's proposals are correct in all detail, it seems like something of the sort is necessary. . . .
6.6. Perceptual Finiteness Depends on an Underlying Continuum of Values
Since people can perceive, for each category, only a finite number of gradations in any given context, one might be tempted to suggest that fuzzy logic be limited to a relatively small finite number of values. But the study of hedges like SORT OF, VERY, PRETTY, and RATHER, whose effect seems to be characterizable at least in part by algebraic functions, indicates that the number and distribution of perceived values is a surface matter, determined by the shape of underlying continuous functions. For this reason, it seems best not to restrict fuzzy logic to any fixed finite number of values. Instead, it seems preferable to attempt to account for the perceptual phenomena by trying to figure out how, in a perceptual model, the shape of underlying continuous functions determines the number and distribution of perceived values.
Ĥδ֤ˤեȤȴʤʤΰˤޤãƤޤä⤽ hedge ֤ܤʸաˡפȤǧϤޤä櫓ʤΤǡΥƤʤ褦ˤפƤ
Lakoff, G. "Hedges: A Study in Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts." Journal of Philosophical Logic 2 (1973): 458--508.
Powered by WinChalow1.0rc4 based on chalow