The interpretative options of anaphoric complex demonstratives

IF 0.9 2区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS Glossa-A Journal of General Linguistics Pub Date : 2021-11-25 DOI:10.16995/glossa.5700
S. Hinterwimmer, Umesh Patil
{"title":"The interpretative options of anaphoric complex demonstratives","authors":"S. Hinterwimmer, Umesh Patil","doi":"10.16995/glossa.5700","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, we present experimental evidence from a ‘yes’/’no’ judgement task and twoacceptability rating studies (Experiments 1a-c) for the claim made in Hinterwimmer (2019) thatsentences with two anaphorically interpreted complex demonstratives are less acceptable thansentences with two anaphorically interpreted definite descriptions and sentences where one ofthe two previously introduced referents is picked up by a complex demonstrative, while the otherone is picked up by a definite description. The results of Experiment 1a and 1b are in principlecompatible with the account argued for in Hinterwimmer (2019), according to which the (potentiallyabstract) demonstrations presupposed by demonstratives may not have overlapping trajectories.However, sentences with two anaphorically interpreted complex demonstratives are not judgedas unacceptable as would be expected if they involved a presupposition violation. Therefore, wepropose an alternative, economy-based pragmatic account that builds on Ahn (2019) and Nowak(2019). The question of whether the observed pattern is more compatible with the accountproposed by Hinterwimmer (2019) or the alternative pragmatic account is directly addressed in afurther acceptability rating study (Experiment 1c). The design of that study is similar to that ofExperiment 1b, but it includes as fillers both sentences clearly violating a presupposition andsentences violating a pragmatic constraint. Since the ratings for sentences containing twoanaphorically interpreted complex demonstratives are closer to the ratings for sentences violatinga pragmatic constraint than for sentences violating a presupposition, we conclude that thealternative pragmatic account is preferable to the account by Hinterwimmer (2019).","PeriodicalId":46319,"journal":{"name":"Glossa-A Journal of General Linguistics","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Glossa-A Journal of General Linguistics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.5700","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this paper, we present experimental evidence from a ‘yes’/’no’ judgement task and twoacceptability rating studies (Experiments 1a-c) for the claim made in Hinterwimmer (2019) thatsentences with two anaphorically interpreted complex demonstratives are less acceptable thansentences with two anaphorically interpreted definite descriptions and sentences where one ofthe two previously introduced referents is picked up by a complex demonstrative, while the otherone is picked up by a definite description. The results of Experiment 1a and 1b are in principlecompatible with the account argued for in Hinterwimmer (2019), according to which the (potentiallyabstract) demonstrations presupposed by demonstratives may not have overlapping trajectories.However, sentences with two anaphorically interpreted complex demonstratives are not judgedas unacceptable as would be expected if they involved a presupposition violation. Therefore, wepropose an alternative, economy-based pragmatic account that builds on Ahn (2019) and Nowak(2019). The question of whether the observed pattern is more compatible with the accountproposed by Hinterwimmer (2019) or the alternative pragmatic account is directly addressed in afurther acceptability rating study (Experiment 1c). The design of that study is similar to that ofExperiment 1b, but it includes as fillers both sentences clearly violating a presupposition andsentences violating a pragmatic constraint. Since the ratings for sentences containing twoanaphorically interpreted complex demonstratives are closer to the ratings for sentences violatinga pragmatic constraint than for sentences violating a presupposition, we conclude that thealternative pragmatic account is preferable to the account by Hinterwimmer (2019).
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
回指复合指示语的解释选择
在本文中,我们提供了来自“是”/“否”判断任务和两个可接受性评级研究(实验1a-c)的实验证据,以证明Hinterwimmer(2019)提出的主张,即具有两个回指解释的复杂指示词的句子比具有两个回指解释的确定描述的句子和两个先前引入的指称物之一被一个复杂指示词拾取的句子更容易被接受。而另一个则是由一个明确的描述挑选出来的。实验1a和1b的结果原则上与Hinterwimmer(2019)中提出的解释一致,根据该解释,指示物预设的(潜在抽象的)演示可能没有重叠的轨迹。然而,有两个回指解释的复杂指示的句子并不像预期的那样不可接受,如果它们涉及违反预设。因此,我们在Ahn(2019)和Nowak(2019)的基础上提出了另一种基于经济的实用主义解释。观察到的模式是否更符合Hinterwimmer(2019)提出的解释,还是另一种语用解释,这一问题将在进一步的可接受性评级研究中直接解决(实验1c)。该研究的设计与实验1b相似,但它包括明显违反预设的句子和违反语用约束的句子作为填充。由于包含两个照旧解释的复杂指示语的句子的评分更接近于违反语用约束的句子的评分,而不是违反预设的句子,因此我们得出结论,替代语用解释比Hinterwimmer(2019)的说法更可取。
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
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
10.00%
发文量
87
审稿时长
62 weeks
期刊最新文献
Title Pending 10160 Title Pending 8932 Title Pending 8653 Title Pending 10229 Title Pending 9904
×
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:481959085
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