Puzzling response particles: An experimental study on the German answering system

IF 1.4 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS Semantics & Pragmatics Pub Date : 2017-12-20 DOI:10.3765/SP.10.19
B. Claus, A. Meijer, Sophie Repp, M. Krifka
{"title":"Puzzling response particles: An experimental study on the German answering system","authors":"B. Claus, A. Meijer, Sophie Repp, M. Krifka","doi":"10.3765/SP.10.19","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper addresses the use and interpretation of the German response particles ja , nein , and doch . In four experiments, we collected acceptability-judgement data for the full paradigm of standard German particles in responses to positive and negative assertions. The experiments were designed to test the empirical validity of two recent accounts of response particles, Roelofsen & Farkas (2015) and Krifka (2013), which view response particles as propositional anaphors. The results for responses to negative antecedents were unpredicted and inconsistent with either account. A further unexpected finding was that there was large interindividual variation in the acceptability patterns for affirming responses to negative antecedents to the extent that most speakers found ja more acceptable whereas some found nein more acceptable. We discuss possible revisions of the two accounts to model the findings, and explore in how far the findings can be accounted for in alternative, ellipsis accounts of response particles. \n \nEARLY ACCESS","PeriodicalId":45550,"journal":{"name":"Semantics & Pragmatics","volume":"10 1","pages":"19"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2017-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"17","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Semantics & Pragmatics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3765/SP.10.19","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 17

Abstract

This paper addresses the use and interpretation of the German response particles ja , nein , and doch . In four experiments, we collected acceptability-judgement data for the full paradigm of standard German particles in responses to positive and negative assertions. The experiments were designed to test the empirical validity of two recent accounts of response particles, Roelofsen & Farkas (2015) and Krifka (2013), which view response particles as propositional anaphors. The results for responses to negative antecedents were unpredicted and inconsistent with either account. A further unexpected finding was that there was large interindividual variation in the acceptability patterns for affirming responses to negative antecedents to the extent that most speakers found ja more acceptable whereas some found nein more acceptable. We discuss possible revisions of the two accounts to model the findings, and explore in how far the findings can be accounted for in alternative, ellipsis accounts of response particles. EARLY ACCESS
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
令人费解的应答粒子:德语应答系统的实验研究
本文讨论了德国响应粒子ja、nein和doch的使用和解释。在四个实验中,我们收集了标准德国粒子的完整范式对积极和消极断言的可接受性判断数据。这些实验旨在测试最近两种关于反应粒子的描述的经验有效性,Roelofsen&Farkas(2015)和Krifka(2013),他们将反应粒子视为命题回指。对负面前因的反应结果是不可预测的,与任何一种说法都不一致。另一个意想不到的发现是,对负面前因的肯定反应的可接受模式在个体间存在很大差异,以至于大多数说话者认为ja更容易被接受,而一些人则认为nein更容易接受。我们讨论了对这两种描述的可能修订,以对研究结果进行建模,并探讨了在反应粒子的替代省略描述中可以在多大程度上解释这些发现。早期访问
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
审稿时长
50 weeks
期刊最新文献
Using the Anna Karenina Principle to explain why cause favors negative-sentiment complements Putting oughts together Probabilities and logic in implicature computation: Two puzzles with embedded disjunction Context Dynamics Pair-list answers to questions with plural definites
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1