关于时体的否定形式的问题
- 主题发起人 stream
- 时间
- 状态
xusun575
高级会员
回复: 关于时体的否定形式的问题
No research could be properly done without referring to relevant studies done in the past. My question is in what way your present would-be research would be associated with what have be done by other researchers in your interested field.
回复: 关于时体的否定形式的问题
I think it makes more sense to talk about the interaction between negation (variants of analytic vs. synthetic negation) and aspect (simple, perfect, and progressive etc) than simply counting negative forms in native and learner data as negation is a notion closely link to the contents / propositions expressed. You might find my following unpblished ms of help (a Chinese translation is to appear in a journal in China).
For a comparison, my paper on negation in Chinese can be useful:
http://www.chineseupress.com/asp/e_Book_card.asp?BookID=2514&Lang=e
I think Jiajin's earlier reply about zero case in another thread has answered your second question.
I think it makes more sense to talk about the interaction between negation (variants of analytic vs. synthetic negation) and aspect (simple, perfect, and progressive etc) than simply counting negative forms in native and learner data as negation is a notion closely link to the contents / propositions expressed. You might find my following unpblished ms of help (a Chinese translation is to appear in a journal in China).
For a comparison, my paper on negation in Chinese can be useful:
http://www.chineseupress.com/asp/e_Book_card.asp?BookID=2514&Lang=e
I think Jiajin's earlier reply about zero case in another thread has answered your second question.
xusun575
高级会员
回复: 关于时体的否定形式的问题
静下心来先读读quirk, lyons吧！
咱现在就把得罪人的“娱乐”事业进行到底吧：英语中的“体”算个什么东东呢？
说英语中有“简单体”就像国内有人跟风说汉语中有“关系分句”一样的雷人
咱又要得罪人了：那是“体”吗？看来你连“体”都没搞清楚就想趟这浑水了。
静下心来先读读quirk, lyons吧！
咱现在就把得罪人的“娱乐”事业进行到底吧：英语中的“体”算个什么东东呢？
说英语中有“简单体”就像国内有人跟风说汉语中有“关系分句”一样的雷人
xusun575
高级会员
回复: 关于时体的否定形式的问题
您千万别用＂批评＂，咱只是快人快语，见到不到劲的东东，有时甚至会浑身冒汗滴呢．如果您感觉是＂批评＂，别往心里去，咱这里只能给你一个深深的大躬道歉：对不起啊！
时是时，体是体，不同的语法范，故你的看法是不对的．当年quirk等的理论初进中国，国内跟风一片，有人便想当然地认为英语中应该有个simple aspect.读一读quirk１９８５,他的书里确有simple aspect一说，但那绝不是simple tense. 如果你懂俄语，或请教懂俄语的老师，查一下俄文版的语言学百科，真正的答案在那里．没有斯拉夫语言，尤其是俄语的背景，要搞懂体的真不容易．蔡和肖是博士，但咱也不必谦虚了，在这一点上，仅仅在这一点上，这是Achilles heel，呵呵．
国内所谓的情状体应该和 bernard comrie的力作 Aspect一书有关，（北大出版社曾出版）．英语体的问题还是读一下quirk1985,更应该读一下lyons的语言学和语义学专著．
您千万别用＂批评＂，咱只是快人快语，见到不到劲的东东，有时甚至会浑身冒汗滴呢．如果您感觉是＂批评＂，别往心里去，咱这里只能给你一个深深的大躬道歉：对不起啊！
时是时，体是体，不同的语法范，故你的看法是不对的．当年quirk等的理论初进中国，国内跟风一片，有人便想当然地认为英语中应该有个simple aspect.读一读quirk１９８５,他的书里确有simple aspect一说，但那绝不是simple tense. 如果你懂俄语，或请教懂俄语的老师，查一下俄文版的语言学百科，真正的答案在那里．没有斯拉夫语言，尤其是俄语的背景，要搞懂体的真不容易．蔡和肖是博士，但咱也不必谦虚了，在这一点上，仅仅在这一点上，这是Achilles heel，呵呵．
国内所谓的情状体应该和 bernard comrie的力作 Aspect一书有关，（北大出版社曾出版）．英语体的问题还是读一下quirk1985,更应该读一下lyons的语言学和语义学专著．
Last edited:
回复: 关于时体的否定形式的问题
My answer to your question is positive. Yes English has simple aspect.
Temporal information in English is expressed in a combination of tense and aspect. Aspectual information is a synthetic result of situation aspect (Arktionsart) and viewpoint aspect (also called grammatical aspect). Situation aspect is universal cross-linguistically (see my 2002 article in the Journal of Universal Language), while viewpoint aspect is language specific (see my 2004 book for a comprehensive description of aspect in Mandrain Chinese and a comparision of aspect in English and Chinese).
Viewpoint aspect in English includes the simple aspect, the perfect apsect, the progressive aspect, and the perfect progressive (this is "etc" in my previous posting).
Temporal information is expressed by a combination of tense (past, present, i.e. Comrie's absolute tense - it is debatable whether English also has a future tense as the future meaning is expressed by modals) and aspect.
My answer to your question is positive. Yes English has simple aspect.
Temporal information in English is expressed in a combination of tense and aspect. Aspectual information is a synthetic result of situation aspect (Arktionsart) and viewpoint aspect (also called grammatical aspect). Situation aspect is universal cross-linguistically (see my 2002 article in the Journal of Universal Language), while viewpoint aspect is language specific (see my 2004 book for a comprehensive description of aspect in Mandrain Chinese and a comparision of aspect in English and Chinese).
Viewpoint aspect in English includes the simple aspect, the perfect apsect, the progressive aspect, and the perfect progressive (this is "etc" in my previous posting).
Temporal information is expressed by a combination of tense (past, present, i.e. Comrie's absolute tense - it is debatable whether English also has a future tense as the future meaning is expressed by modals) and aspect.
咱来灌水又拍砖:英语中有simple aspect吗? 英语中所谓的aspect真的多到了可以用"etc"的程度了吗?
回复: 关于时体的否定形式的问题
Yes that is aspect. As I said, aspect has two components: Situation aspect indicates what I call "the temporal shape" of a situation in my 2004 artile in the Journal of Linguistics, while viewpoint aspect refers to the "temporal location" of a situation. Aspect is this kind of 东东.
Whether the temporal information expressed like this is called a combination of tense and aspect, or relative tenses as Comrie does (which you seem to follow), - is indeed debatable and such kinds of academic debates are QUITE normal. This is not 跟风. And I do not think it 雷人 either. So just stop babbling around as if you were THE TRUTH!
BTW - it is indeed controversial whether Chinese also has relative clauses, not only in China, but also in other parts of the world.
"咱又要得罪人了：那是“体”吗？看来你连“体”都没搞清楚就想趟这浑水了。"
To be honest, I also find it unhelpful for professors to take this kind of discouraging attitude towards young scholars.
Yes that is aspect. As I said, aspect has two components: Situation aspect indicates what I call "the temporal shape" of a situation in my 2004 artile in the Journal of Linguistics, while viewpoint aspect refers to the "temporal location" of a situation. Aspect is this kind of 东东.
Whether the temporal information expressed like this is called a combination of tense and aspect, or relative tenses as Comrie does (which you seem to follow), - is indeed debatable and such kinds of academic debates are QUITE normal. This is not 跟风. And I do not think it 雷人 either. So just stop babbling around as if you were THE TRUTH!
BTW - it is indeed controversial whether Chinese also has relative clauses, not only in China, but also in other parts of the world.
"咱又要得罪人了：那是“体”吗？看来你连“体”都没搞清楚就想趟这浑水了。"
To be honest, I also find it unhelpful for professors to take this kind of discouraging attitude towards young scholars.
静下心来先读读quirk, lyons吧！
咱现在就把得罪人的“娱乐”事业进行到底吧：英语中的“体”算个什么东东呢？
说英语中有“简单体”就像国内有人跟风说汉语中有“关系分句”一样的雷人
回复: 关于时体的否定形式的问题
Well, simple present, simple past and simple future are combinations of tense and aspect, to be precise: simple aspect + past (present, future) tense.
Well, simple present, simple past and simple future are combinations of tense and aspect, to be precise: simple aspect + past (present, future) tense.
回复: 关于时体的否定形式的问题
Richard's 2004 aspect book:
Aspect in Mandarin Chinese: A Corpus-based Study (Studies in Language Companion)
by: Richard Xiao, Anthony Mark McEnery
John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Search http://books.google.com/ for a quick viewing.
Richard's 2004 aspect book:
Aspect in Mandarin Chinese: A Corpus-based Study (Studies in Language Companion)
by: Richard Xiao, Anthony Mark McEnery
John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Search http://books.google.com/ for a quick viewing.
回复: 关于时体的否定形式的问题
Stream said "simple present" - you are saying "simple tense" indeed. Simple present is a combination of simple aspect + present tense.
Now that you have mentioned Russian and Salvic langauges, here is a bit more information (from Xiao and McEnery 2004):
...the perfective/imperfective distinction derived initially from studies of Slavic languages, and the term aspect was originally only related to what we call viewpoint aspect. In Russian, as in all Slavic languages, most verbs have two morphological forms that represent two different ways of viewing a situation - as perfective or as imperfective. The distinction between perfective and imperfective is a basic opposition in many languages (cf. Bybee 1985; Dahl 1985, 1999:33; Frawley 1992). Dahl (1985:69-72), for example, finds in his study of 64 languages that this opposition occurred in 45 languages. While Chinese draws productive and overt distinctions between these two viewpoints, English does not have a productive morphological distinction between these (cf. Siewierska 1991:120) and “relies on other grammatical and semantic phenomena, like tense, to encode this aspectual distinction” (Frawley 1992:296).
It is clear that the "aspect" in original sense has developed and been enriched over time. It's just the different ways to encode such information - morphologically (as in Russian) or syntactically (as in many other languages such as Chinese).
Stream said "simple present" - you are saying "simple tense" indeed. Simple present is a combination of simple aspect + present tense.
Now that you have mentioned Russian and Salvic langauges, here is a bit more information (from Xiao and McEnery 2004):
...the perfective/imperfective distinction derived initially from studies of Slavic languages, and the term aspect was originally only related to what we call viewpoint aspect. In Russian, as in all Slavic languages, most verbs have two morphological forms that represent two different ways of viewing a situation - as perfective or as imperfective. The distinction between perfective and imperfective is a basic opposition in many languages (cf. Bybee 1985; Dahl 1985, 1999:33; Frawley 1992). Dahl (1985:69-72), for example, finds in his study of 64 languages that this opposition occurred in 45 languages. While Chinese draws productive and overt distinctions between these two viewpoints, English does not have a productive morphological distinction between these (cf. Siewierska 1991:120) and “relies on other grammatical and semantic phenomena, like tense, to encode this aspectual distinction” (Frawley 1992:296).
It is clear that the "aspect" in original sense has developed and been enriched over time. It's just the different ways to encode such information - morphologically (as in Russian) or syntactically (as in many other languages such as Chinese).
回复: 关于时体的否定形式的问题
Aspect is in fact far from being such a simple static concept as you may have imagined on the basis of limited reading of Quirk et al and Lyons, as can be seen in part of section 3.1 Definitional issues of my 2004 book.
While aspect has been the subject of much research, defining aspect can be surprisingly difficult (cf. Santos 1996; O’Brien 1997). As Holisky (1981:128) comments “[t]here are almost as many definitions for aspect as there are linguists who have used it.” Consequently our first task in this chapter is to consider the key elements of aspect in order to produce a definition of the term which, while being of use to this book, is also situated in the broad body of research on aspect.
Aspect as a concept has developed over time, and can roughly be typified as one of two things. The first approach to aspect is intimately related to the origin of the term. The term ‘aspect’ can be tracked back to Grech (1827), who first used the Russian term vid “view” in his Russian Grammar (cf. Klein 1994:27). The Russian term was translated into French as aspect and borrowed by English (cf. Lyons 1977:705). The origin of the term shows that aspect is originally perspectival,i.e. concerned with the viewpoint or perspective the speaker takes in looking at a situation. A heavily quoted definition typical of this vein of research is given by Comrie (1976:3): “aspects are different ways of viewing the internal temporal constituency of a situation.” Of course, Comrie is neither the first nor the last linguist to approach aspect in this way. Kruisinga (1931:221), for example, suggested that aspects “express whether the speaker looks upon an action in its entirety, or with special reference to some part.” More recently, Johnson (1981:152) defined aspect as “reference to one of the temporally distinct phases in the evolution of an event through time.”
However, a later view of aspect developed which saw the first view as, at best, a partial account of aspect. Linguists came to realise that the internal temporal structures of situations also contribute to aspectual meanings and so the term aspect broadened to include the internal temporal features of situations, i.e. whether a situation is dynamic or stative, durative or punctual, and telic or atelic. Dynamic vs. stative, durative vs. punctual, and telic vs. atelic are three important oppositions of semantic features closely related to the temporal structure of a situation. These three binary features are widely used for aspectual classification in the literature.[1] They correspond to [±dynamic], [±durative] and [±telic] in this book (see section 3.2). While the meanings of dynamicity and durativity are self-evident, it is sufficient for the moment to note that telicity is related to a natural final endpoint.
The classification of lexical verbs (i.e. ‘aspectual class’, cf. Schilder 1997:8) based on their temporal properties is actually what the German term Aktionsart “kind of action” typically covers. The term Aktionsart in this sense was introduced by Agrell (1908), though it had been used before by Streitberg (1889) in a quite different sense, i.e. roughly like ‘aspect’ in its original sense (cf. Klein 1994:17, 225).
While not necessarily using the terms ‘aspect’ and ‘Aktionsart’, the distinction is apparent in the opposition of grammatical vs. lexical aspect (cf. Siewierska 1991:116; Olsen 1997; Bickel 1997:115; Hsieh 2001:234), subjective vs. objective aspect (cf. Smith 1983:480, 493ff; Kruisinga 1931:232-233; Dahl 1981:83), aspect vs. character (Kruisinga 1931:230-237), aspectual class vs. aspect form (Johnson 1981:153), primary vs. secondary aspect (Galton 1997), procedural characteristics vs. situational focus (Bach 1985:145; cf. Brinton 1988:257), viewpoint aspect vs. situation aspect (Smith 1983, 1991, 1997) and aspectual class vs. grammatical aspect (de Swart 1998). The Aktionsart of English verbs has generally not been the subject of study in traditional grammar and has only recently been studied in linguistic accounts of English verbs (cf. Brinton 1988:5). More recently, however, Aktionsart has gained prominence in aspect scholarship. Some authors even go to the extreme of using the term aspect to refer to Aktionsart only. For example, Jacobson (1971:130-147) suggests that aspect “deals with temporal values inherent in the activity or state itself.”
The two sets of definitions discussed above actually represent two different notions. Unfortunately they share the same name, which inevitably leads to terminological confusion. This confusion is widely recognised (see Comrie 1976:1; Friedrich 1974: S2-3, S6-9; Brinton 1988:4-5; inter alia), and can lead to “aspect, Aktionsart, and even tense terms...[being]...used interchangeably” (Brinton 1988:4).
The lack of terminological consistency in the discussion of aspect makes reviewing research on aspect a very challenging task. For example, the distinction between aspect and Aktionsart is often ignored or blurred, or made in different ways (cf. Comrie 1976:67n). Consider the three “basic aspect categories” proposed by Friedrich (1974:S36): (a) durative, continuative, imperfective, etc.; (b) punctual, completive, perfective, etc.; (c) stative, perfect, etc. Similar views are also found in Holisky (1981), Hopper (1979), Li, Thompson & Thompson (1982) and Decker (1998).
Friedrich uses the term aspect to cover the classical meaning of the term, but also Aktionsart. In his model, ‘punctual’ equals ‘perfective’ and ‘durative’ equals ‘imperfective’. But this is decidedly not true. As will be discussed at greater length later in sections 2.4 and 3.2, the durative/punctual distinction is clearly related to Aktionsart, whereas the perfective/imperfective distinction is clearly related to aspect in its original sense. For example, a durative situation like John crying and a punctual situation like John coughing can be presented both perfectively (John cried and John coughed) and imperfectively (John was crying and John was coughing). Those linguists who have been mindful of the aspect/Aktionsart distinction have not necessarily agreed upon how to distinguish the two. For the purpose of the work presented here, aspect subsumes both the perfective/imperfective distinction and Aktionsart. However, as will become apparent later, the subcomponents of aspect are treated differently by us, unlike for example, Friedrich (ibid), who treated perfective/imperfective and Aktionsart as though they were almost synonymous.
While Comrie (1976) and Kruisinga (1931) explicitly define aspect as different perspectives for presenting situations, Jacobson (1973) uses the term to refer to the internal temporal structures of situations, Smith (1991, 1997) does not accept this opposition. Rather, her definition is inclusive of both: “Aspect is the semantic domain of the temporal structure of situations and their presentation” (Smith 1991:3, 1997:1). According to Smith, the internal temporal structure and the perspectives from which situations are presented are two separate but equally important components which interact to determine aspectual meanings. In Smith’s model, the first component of aspect, ‘situation aspect’, concerns the internal temporal features of ‘idealised situations’ (Smith 1997:17) such as [±dynamic], [±durative] and [±telic] (see section 3.2). Different combinations of these temporal features form different ‘situation types’ (ibid:17). The second component is what Smith calls ‘viewpoint aspect’ (ibid:60), which “enables the speaker to present the event talked about from a particular temporal perspective” (Smith 1988:230). For example, perfective viewpoints focus on a situation as a whole while imperfective viewpoints focus only on part of a situation.
[1] In the literature, the word aspectual is sometimes found to be used as a term covering both viewpoint or perspectival aspect and Aktionsart (e.g. Brinton 1988:4). However, in this book, we will use this word only as the adjectival form of aspect.
Aspect is in fact far from being such a simple static concept as you may have imagined on the basis of limited reading of Quirk et al and Lyons, as can be seen in part of section 3.1 Definitional issues of my 2004 book.
While aspect has been the subject of much research, defining aspect can be surprisingly difficult (cf. Santos 1996; O’Brien 1997). As Holisky (1981:128) comments “[t]here are almost as many definitions for aspect as there are linguists who have used it.” Consequently our first task in this chapter is to consider the key elements of aspect in order to produce a definition of the term which, while being of use to this book, is also situated in the broad body of research on aspect.
Aspect as a concept has developed over time, and can roughly be typified as one of two things. The first approach to aspect is intimately related to the origin of the term. The term ‘aspect’ can be tracked back to Grech (1827), who first used the Russian term vid “view” in his Russian Grammar (cf. Klein 1994:27). The Russian term was translated into French as aspect and borrowed by English (cf. Lyons 1977:705). The origin of the term shows that aspect is originally perspectival,i.e. concerned with the viewpoint or perspective the speaker takes in looking at a situation. A heavily quoted definition typical of this vein of research is given by Comrie (1976:3): “aspects are different ways of viewing the internal temporal constituency of a situation.” Of course, Comrie is neither the first nor the last linguist to approach aspect in this way. Kruisinga (1931:221), for example, suggested that aspects “express whether the speaker looks upon an action in its entirety, or with special reference to some part.” More recently, Johnson (1981:152) defined aspect as “reference to one of the temporally distinct phases in the evolution of an event through time.”
However, a later view of aspect developed which saw the first view as, at best, a partial account of aspect. Linguists came to realise that the internal temporal structures of situations also contribute to aspectual meanings and so the term aspect broadened to include the internal temporal features of situations, i.e. whether a situation is dynamic or stative, durative or punctual, and telic or atelic. Dynamic vs. stative, durative vs. punctual, and telic vs. atelic are three important oppositions of semantic features closely related to the temporal structure of a situation. These three binary features are widely used for aspectual classification in the literature.[1] They correspond to [±dynamic], [±durative] and [±telic] in this book (see section 3.2). While the meanings of dynamicity and durativity are self-evident, it is sufficient for the moment to note that telicity is related to a natural final endpoint.
The classification of lexical verbs (i.e. ‘aspectual class’, cf. Schilder 1997:8) based on their temporal properties is actually what the German term Aktionsart “kind of action” typically covers. The term Aktionsart in this sense was introduced by Agrell (1908), though it had been used before by Streitberg (1889) in a quite different sense, i.e. roughly like ‘aspect’ in its original sense (cf. Klein 1994:17, 225).
While not necessarily using the terms ‘aspect’ and ‘Aktionsart’, the distinction is apparent in the opposition of grammatical vs. lexical aspect (cf. Siewierska 1991:116; Olsen 1997; Bickel 1997:115; Hsieh 2001:234), subjective vs. objective aspect (cf. Smith 1983:480, 493ff; Kruisinga 1931:232-233; Dahl 1981:83), aspect vs. character (Kruisinga 1931:230-237), aspectual class vs. aspect form (Johnson 1981:153), primary vs. secondary aspect (Galton 1997), procedural characteristics vs. situational focus (Bach 1985:145; cf. Brinton 1988:257), viewpoint aspect vs. situation aspect (Smith 1983, 1991, 1997) and aspectual class vs. grammatical aspect (de Swart 1998). The Aktionsart of English verbs has generally not been the subject of study in traditional grammar and has only recently been studied in linguistic accounts of English verbs (cf. Brinton 1988:5). More recently, however, Aktionsart has gained prominence in aspect scholarship. Some authors even go to the extreme of using the term aspect to refer to Aktionsart only. For example, Jacobson (1971:130-147) suggests that aspect “deals with temporal values inherent in the activity or state itself.”
The two sets of definitions discussed above actually represent two different notions. Unfortunately they share the same name, which inevitably leads to terminological confusion. This confusion is widely recognised (see Comrie 1976:1; Friedrich 1974: S2-3, S6-9; Brinton 1988:4-5; inter alia), and can lead to “aspect, Aktionsart, and even tense terms...[being]...used interchangeably” (Brinton 1988:4).
The lack of terminological consistency in the discussion of aspect makes reviewing research on aspect a very challenging task. For example, the distinction between aspect and Aktionsart is often ignored or blurred, or made in different ways (cf. Comrie 1976:67n). Consider the three “basic aspect categories” proposed by Friedrich (1974:S36): (a) durative, continuative, imperfective, etc.; (b) punctual, completive, perfective, etc.; (c) stative, perfect, etc. Similar views are also found in Holisky (1981), Hopper (1979), Li, Thompson & Thompson (1982) and Decker (1998).
Friedrich uses the term aspect to cover the classical meaning of the term, but also Aktionsart. In his model, ‘punctual’ equals ‘perfective’ and ‘durative’ equals ‘imperfective’. But this is decidedly not true. As will be discussed at greater length later in sections 2.4 and 3.2, the durative/punctual distinction is clearly related to Aktionsart, whereas the perfective/imperfective distinction is clearly related to aspect in its original sense. For example, a durative situation like John crying and a punctual situation like John coughing can be presented both perfectively (John cried and John coughed) and imperfectively (John was crying and John was coughing). Those linguists who have been mindful of the aspect/Aktionsart distinction have not necessarily agreed upon how to distinguish the two. For the purpose of the work presented here, aspect subsumes both the perfective/imperfective distinction and Aktionsart. However, as will become apparent later, the subcomponents of aspect are treated differently by us, unlike for example, Friedrich (ibid), who treated perfective/imperfective and Aktionsart as though they were almost synonymous.
While Comrie (1976) and Kruisinga (1931) explicitly define aspect as different perspectives for presenting situations, Jacobson (1973) uses the term to refer to the internal temporal structures of situations, Smith (1991, 1997) does not accept this opposition. Rather, her definition is inclusive of both: “Aspect is the semantic domain of the temporal structure of situations and their presentation” (Smith 1991:3, 1997:1). According to Smith, the internal temporal structure and the perspectives from which situations are presented are two separate but equally important components which interact to determine aspectual meanings. In Smith’s model, the first component of aspect, ‘situation aspect’, concerns the internal temporal features of ‘idealised situations’ (Smith 1997:17) such as [±dynamic], [±durative] and [±telic] (see section 3.2). Different combinations of these temporal features form different ‘situation types’ (ibid:17). The second component is what Smith calls ‘viewpoint aspect’ (ibid:60), which “enables the speaker to present the event talked about from a particular temporal perspective” (Smith 1988:230). For example, perfective viewpoints focus on a situation as a whole while imperfective viewpoints focus only on part of a situation.
[1] In the literature, the word aspectual is sometimes found to be used as a term covering both viewpoint or perspectival aspect and Aktionsart (e.g. Brinton 1988:4). However, in this book, we will use this word only as the adjectival form of aspect.
xusun575
高级会员
回复: 关于时体的否定形式的问题
Thank you xiaoz for your well-elaborated, tediously “babbling” reply to my questioning your concept of the so called “aspect” in the English language as it will refresh my understanding of this controversial term as a category in English.
I would feel no surprise that you should have given your reply with expertise knowledge to my academic challenge but do feel surprise that you should have gone too far in your boorishly insulting wordings in F13.
I should remind you xiaoz that you have no right to ask me to do or not to do this or that just as I have no right either to stop you from behaving like an overbearing omniscient pedantic egg head in this thread.
You have no right to question, in an unacceptably arrogant manner, my integrity by labeling me with “discouraging attitude towards young scholars”, which is nothing but a seed (or an Apple) of Discord between me and young scholars. As a respected scholar of CL field, how could you dish the dirt upon my way of participating in the corpus4u postings and discussion just because my understanding of an academic issue different from yours? Don’t you be too bossy, too domineering, or too despotic . Be open-minded pls any time your opinion should be challenged.
I would feel no surprise that you should have given your reply with expertise knowledge to my academic challenge but do feel surprise that you should have gone too far in your boorishly insulting wordings in F13.
I should remind you xiaoz that you have no right to ask me to do or not to do this or that just as I have no right either to stop you from behaving like an overbearing omniscient pedantic egg head in this thread.
You have no right to question, in an unacceptably arrogant manner, my integrity by labeling me with “discouraging attitude towards young scholars”, which is nothing but a seed (or an Apple) of Discord between me and young scholars. As a respected scholar of CL field, how could you dish the dirt upon my way of participating in the corpus4u postings and discussion just because my understanding of an academic issue different from yours? Don’t you be too bossy, too domineering, or too despotic . Be open-minded pls any time your opinion should be challenged.
回复: 关于时体的否定形式的问题
xusun575, if my posting in F13 has hurt you, sorry, my apologies. By the way, no words in my previous postings are dirty; they are all cleaner than the parcel of adjectives and adverbs in your reply.
My "tediously babbling" replies are certainly tedious, as you said, for a corpus linguistics forum, but what I said is relevant and of essential importance in aspect research. I posted those pieces here because you were asking that kind of questions; I posted those pieces here because you were talking as if the approach you follow is the only correct way of discussing aspect so that people like Stream are denied their right to study aspect in the way they want; I posted those pieces here because I wanted to use evidence to show the issue is more controversial and debatable than you have assumed.
I write like a "pedant" at this forum because I believe that serious academic writings at a professonal forum should be in a pedantic style. I'm glad that, however, if the word "pedant" is to be taken negatively, I do not criticise what people say at this forum as often as you have.
My ideas about aspect, or about corpus lingusitics or anything else, are of course open to the whole world. I am open-minded and welcome challenges of all kinds, whether they concern the theortical framework or methodology. If anyone does, please do use evidence, NOT a parcel of derogatory remarks used as personal attacks, which is undelivered and returned to the sender. I'm at least not so bossy as to say words such as "那是“体”吗？看来你连“体”都没搞清楚就想趟这浑水了" to discourage young people.
You are of course very welcome to contribute to the discussions at the forum, and as a founding administrator of the corpus4u community, I acknowledge your long-term contributions to corpus4u. But I would also encourage all corpus researchers, young or old, established or new in career, to speak up and focus on academic exchanges at the forum rather than wasting system resources on personal attacks from time to time.
If we want to criticise what people have done, fine; but we must produce evidence or if possible also suggest solutions or ways of improvement. Anyway it's easier to destroy than construct. Criticisms without showing evidence have led to unhappy personal exchanges from time to time at this forum. I still remember a speaker at the Corpus Lingusitics 2005 conference who criticised the BNC corpus for half an hour in his talk, but his 30 minutes were fully packed with the actual errors in the BNC - he had indeed spent time spotting those errors, which are now corrected in the latet XML edition. The audience that attended his session were grateful to him. The BNC team is also thankful to him. The WordSmith Tools suffers from tummy bugs, the CLEC corpus contains errors, williamjia's programs took too long to develop, lixiaoshun's Word2009 needs improvement in functions, alexwen's ideas of programming are probably total rubbish...fine. We can criticise, of course, but we must show evidence for what we say; and if we are kind and talented enough, we can even propose some insightful solutions.
Period.
xusun575, if my posting in F13 has hurt you, sorry, my apologies. By the way, no words in my previous postings are dirty; they are all cleaner than the parcel of adjectives and adverbs in your reply.
My "tediously babbling" replies are certainly tedious, as you said, for a corpus linguistics forum, but what I said is relevant and of essential importance in aspect research. I posted those pieces here because you were asking that kind of questions; I posted those pieces here because you were talking as if the approach you follow is the only correct way of discussing aspect so that people like Stream are denied their right to study aspect in the way they want; I posted those pieces here because I wanted to use evidence to show the issue is more controversial and debatable than you have assumed.
I write like a "pedant" at this forum because I believe that serious academic writings at a professonal forum should be in a pedantic style. I'm glad that, however, if the word "pedant" is to be taken negatively, I do not criticise what people say at this forum as often as you have.
My ideas about aspect, or about corpus lingusitics or anything else, are of course open to the whole world. I am open-minded and welcome challenges of all kinds, whether they concern the theortical framework or methodology. If anyone does, please do use evidence, NOT a parcel of derogatory remarks used as personal attacks, which is undelivered and returned to the sender. I'm at least not so bossy as to say words such as "那是“体”吗？看来你连“体”都没搞清楚就想趟这浑水了" to discourage young people.
You are of course very welcome to contribute to the discussions at the forum, and as a founding administrator of the corpus4u community, I acknowledge your long-term contributions to corpus4u. But I would also encourage all corpus researchers, young or old, established or new in career, to speak up and focus on academic exchanges at the forum rather than wasting system resources on personal attacks from time to time.
If we want to criticise what people have done, fine; but we must produce evidence or if possible also suggest solutions or ways of improvement. Anyway it's easier to destroy than construct. Criticisms without showing evidence have led to unhappy personal exchanges from time to time at this forum. I still remember a speaker at the Corpus Lingusitics 2005 conference who criticised the BNC corpus for half an hour in his talk, but his 30 minutes were fully packed with the actual errors in the BNC - he had indeed spent time spotting those errors, which are now corrected in the latet XML edition. The audience that attended his session were grateful to him. The BNC team is also thankful to him. The WordSmith Tools suffers from tummy bugs, the CLEC corpus contains errors, williamjia's programs took too long to develop, lixiaoshun's Word2009 needs improvement in functions, alexwen's ideas of programming are probably total rubbish...fine. We can criticise, of course, but we must show evidence for what we say; and if we are kind and talented enough, we can even propose some insightful solutions.
Period.
xusun575
高级会员
回复: 关于时体的否定形式的问题
哈哈,习惯性瞅了瞅corpus4u,很高兴地看到你的"Period". 但现在刚刚出水里爬出来(每天晨练,去河里游泳了),发现你又有新东东跟在旧period的后面了.
我得道歉,虽前有声明(咱又要得罪人了), 后有smileyD),但还是让人觉着discouraging. Xiaoz难得动怒, 我的“山寨”风格该改一改了.
每每向同事或学生说起咱corpus4u,俺总是用最高级首推 xiaoz, 成果、学识、学品和提携帮助后学的精神，随后即是俺们的大名顶顶、很有个性的laohong和冉冉升起 CL新星jiajin，（咱什么时候也学会apple polishing了滴呢？）人需要交流的。现在来浙大了吗？咱该去当面向您道个歉。
好了，顺便也向williamJia 和lixiaoshun敬个大礼，做点正事真的不容易。咱11月初去北大公干，借小品语“偶非常想见williamJia”，呵呵。（这个毛病怎么就不改呢？）
至于李鬼alexwen，forget it.
咱坛上有ladies killer, xusun575却是thread killer的啦。这个thread就给它他period掉吧，但千万别删掉，以后定会留下美好记忆。
对了，咱痛斥michaeljarry的跟帖删掉太可惜，xiaoz,或其他admin, 你们还能找回来吗？
哈哈,习惯性瞅了瞅corpus4u,很高兴地看到你的"Period". 但现在刚刚出水里爬出来(每天晨练,去河里游泳了),发现你又有新东东跟在旧period的后面了.
我得道歉,虽前有声明(咱又要得罪人了), 后有smiley
D),但还是让人觉着discouraging. Xiaoz难得动怒, 我的“山寨”风格该改一改了.每每向同事或学生说起咱corpus4u,俺总是用最高级首推 xiaoz, 成果、学识、学品和提携帮助后学的精神，随后即是俺们的大名顶顶、很有个性的laohong和冉冉升起 CL新星jiajin，（咱什么时候也学会apple polishing了滴呢？
）人需要交流的。现在来浙大了吗？咱该去当面向您道个歉。好了，顺便也向williamJia 和lixiaoshun敬个大礼，做点正事真的不容易。咱11月初去北大公干，借小品语“偶非常想见williamJia”，呵呵。（这个毛病怎么就不改呢？
）至于李鬼alexwen，forget it.
咱坛上有ladies killer
, xusun575却是thread killer的啦。这个thread就给它他period掉吧，但千万别删掉，以后定会留下美好记忆。对了，咱痛斥michaeljarry的跟帖删掉太可惜，xiaoz,或其他admin, 你们还能找回来吗？
- 状态