The semantics and pragmatics of nouns in concealed questions

IF 1.4 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS Semantics & Pragmatics Pub Date : 2020-07-29 DOI:10.3765/SP.13.7
Hana Kalpak
{"title":"The semantics and pragmatics of nouns in concealed questions","authors":"Hana Kalpak","doi":"10.3765/SP.13.7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Concealed questions (CQs) are determiner phrases that are naturally paraphrased as embedded questions: I know your age reads as I know what your age is . The availability of CQ readings of determiner phrases has recently been taken to depend on whether the DP head noun is relational (i.e., two-place, like age or capital ) or sortal (one-place, like brick or city ) (Barker 2016). This generalization is based on the observation that many definite DPs lack salient concealed question-readings when their head noun is an unmodified sortal. Relatedly, Frana (2013, 2017) argues that, while quantified DPs have multiple concealed question-readings when the head noun is relational, they have only one when the head noun is sortal. This remark brings together noted counterexamples to both generalizations, and argues on their basis for a pragmatic account of the availability of concealed question readings of determiner phrases. The proposed account refines the analysis of concealed questions developed by Aloni & Roelofsen (2011) through integrating it with (i) a standard analysis of the semantic distinction between relational and sortal nouns, and (ii) Barker's (2016) ideas about the role of salient sets of alternatives in licensing CQ interpretation. The resulting account is shown to deliver correct predictions for the counterexamples to both semantic generalizations, while simultaneously offering an explanation of the strong, yet imperfect, correlation of CQ readings of determiner phrases with a relational head noun. \n \n \nEARLY ACCESS","PeriodicalId":45550,"journal":{"name":"Semantics & Pragmatics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Semantics & Pragmatics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3765/SP.13.7","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: 4

Abstract

Concealed questions (CQs) are determiner phrases that are naturally paraphrased as embedded questions: I know your age reads as I know what your age is . The availability of CQ readings of determiner phrases has recently been taken to depend on whether the DP head noun is relational (i.e., two-place, like age or capital ) or sortal (one-place, like brick or city ) (Barker 2016). This generalization is based on the observation that many definite DPs lack salient concealed question-readings when their head noun is an unmodified sortal. Relatedly, Frana (2013, 2017) argues that, while quantified DPs have multiple concealed question-readings when the head noun is relational, they have only one when the head noun is sortal. This remark brings together noted counterexamples to both generalizations, and argues on their basis for a pragmatic account of the availability of concealed question readings of determiner phrases. The proposed account refines the analysis of concealed questions developed by Aloni & Roelofsen (2011) through integrating it with (i) a standard analysis of the semantic distinction between relational and sortal nouns, and (ii) Barker's (2016) ideas about the role of salient sets of alternatives in licensing CQ interpretation. The resulting account is shown to deliver correct predictions for the counterexamples to both semantic generalizations, while simultaneously offering an explanation of the strong, yet imperfect, correlation of CQ readings of determiner phrases with a relational head noun. 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
隐问句中名词的语义与语用
隐蔽性问题(CQs)是一种限定词,可以很自然地转化为嵌入式问题:我知道你的年龄读作我知道你的年龄。限定词短语的CQ阅读的可用性最近被认为取决于DP头名词是关系的(即,两个位置,如年龄或首都)还是排序的(一个位置,如砖或城市)(Barker 2016)。这种概括是基于观察,许多明确的DPs缺乏显著的隐藏的问题阅读,当他们的头名词是一个未修饰的排序。与此相关,Frana(2013, 2017)认为,当头名词是关系名词时,量化的dp有多个隐藏的问题阅读,而当头名词是排序名词时,它们只有一个。这句话汇集了两种概括的著名反例,并在他们的基础上论证了对限定词短语的隐藏问题阅读的可用性的语用说明。提出的解释通过将Aloni和Roelofsen(2011)开发的隐藏问题分析与(i)关系名词和排序名词之间语义区分的标准分析,以及(ii) Barker(2016)关于显著替代集在许可CQ解释中的作用的观点相结合,从而改进了对隐藏问题的分析。结果表明,对这两种语义概括的反例给出了正确的预测,同时提供了对限定词短语的CQ阅读与关系头名词之间强烈但不完美的相关性的解释。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