Pub Date : 2019-06-06DOI: 10.1007/s11050-019-09153-8
Clemens Mayr
Why do predicates like know embed both declarative and interrogative clauses, whereas closely related ones like believe only embed the former? The standard approach following Grimshaw (Linguist Inq 10:279–326, 1979) to this issue has been to specify lexically for each predicate which type of complement clause it can combine with. This view is challenged by predicates such as be certain, which embed interrogative clauses only in certain contexts. To deal with this issue, this paper proposes (i) a novel, unified semantics for declarative and interrogative embedding and (ii) a theory where embedding is constrained by semantic considerations. The reason for the apparent unembeddability of an interrogative clause under a given predicate is the resulting trivial meaning of the sentence. Such triviality manifests itself in unacceptability. Crucially, it is affected by both the lexical meaning of the predicate and the polarity of the sentence as a whole.
{"title":"Triviality and interrogative embedding: context sensitivity, factivity, and neg-raising","authors":"Clemens Mayr","doi":"10.1007/s11050-019-09153-8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-019-09153-8","url":null,"abstract":"Why do predicates like <i>know</i> embed both declarative and interrogative clauses, whereas closely related ones like <i>believe</i> only embed the former? The standard approach following Grimshaw (Linguist Inq 10:279–326, 1979) to this issue has been to specify lexically for each predicate which type of complement clause it can combine with. This view is challenged by predicates such as <i>be certain</i>, which embed interrogative clauses only in certain contexts. To deal with this issue, this paper proposes (i) a novel, unified semantics for declarative and interrogative embedding and (ii) a theory where embedding is constrained by semantic considerations. The reason for the apparent unembeddability of an interrogative clause under a given predicate is the resulting trivial meaning of the sentence. Such triviality manifests itself in unacceptability. Crucially, it is affected by both the lexical meaning of the predicate and the polarity of the sentence as a whole.","PeriodicalId":47108,"journal":{"name":"Natural Language Semantics","volume":"240 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2019-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138520807","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-05-18DOI: 10.1007/s11050-019-09154-7
Nicole Gotzner
The function of focus is to activate alternatives, and these activated alternatives are used to compute the corresponding inferences of an utterance. The experimental research reported here investigates the role of focus intonation in inference computation and its interplay with the overt focus particles only and also. In particular, I compare the mechanisms underlying the computation of exhaustivity implicatures, assertions, and additive presuppositions. A memory delay experiment revealed that contrastive intonation (L+H*) makes an exhaustive interpretation equally available as overt only. A second experiment showed that in immediate processing, the implicature in bare focus conditions is delayed relative to the inferences associated with only and also. The findings thus indicate that L+H* accents do not conventionally encode an exhaustive meaning, but encourage implicature computation by (i) making relevant alternatives salient and (ii) providing a strong cue that an inference should be derived.
{"title":"The role of focus intonation in implicature computation: a comparison with only and also","authors":"Nicole Gotzner","doi":"10.1007/s11050-019-09154-7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-019-09154-7","url":null,"abstract":"The function of focus is to activate alternatives, and these activated alternatives are used to compute the corresponding inferences of an utterance. The experimental research reported here investigates the role of focus intonation in inference computation and its interplay with the overt focus particles <i>only</i> and <i>also</i>. In particular, I compare the mechanisms underlying the computation of exhaustivity implicatures, assertions, and additive presuppositions. A memory delay experiment revealed that contrastive intonation (L+H*) makes an exhaustive interpretation equally available as overt <i>only</i>. A second experiment showed that in immediate processing, the implicature in bare focus conditions is delayed relative to the inferences associated with <i>only</i> and <i>also</i>. The findings thus indicate that L+H* accents do not conventionally encode an exhaustive meaning, but encourage implicature computation by (i) making relevant alternatives salient and (ii) providing a strong cue that an inference should be derived.","PeriodicalId":47108,"journal":{"name":"Natural Language Semantics","volume":"4 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2019-05-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138520799","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-03-27DOI: 10.1007/s11050-019-09151-w
Guillermo Del Pinal, Brandon Waldon
According to Kratzer’s influential account of epistemic must and might, these operators involve quantification over domains of possibilities determined by a modal base and an ordering source. Recently, this account has been challenged by invoking contexts of ‘epistemic tension’: i.e., cases in which an assertion that must(phi ) is conjoined with the possibility that (lnot phi ), and cases in which speakers try to downplay a previous assertion that must(phi ), after finding out that (lnot phi ). Epistemic tensions have been invoked from two directions. Von Fintel and Gillies (Nat Lang Semant 18(4):351–383, 2010) propose a return to a simpler modal logic-inspired account: must and might still involve universal and existential quantification, but the domains of possibilities are determined solely by realistic modal bases. In contrast, Lassiter (Nat Lang Semant 24(2):117–163, 2016), following Swanson (Interactions with context. Ph.D. thesis, MIT, 2006; and in A. Eagan and B. Weatherstone, eds., Epistemic Modality, Oxford UP, 2011), proposes a more revisionary account which treats must and might as probabilistic operators. In this paper, we present a series of experiments to obtain reliable data on the degree of acceptability of various contexts of epistemic tension. Our experiments include novel variations that, we argue, are required to make progress in this debate. We show that restricted quantificational accounts à la Kratzer fit the overall pattern of results better than either of their recent competitors. In addition, our results help us identify the key components of restricted quantificational accounts, and on that basis propose some refinements and general constraints that should be satisfied by any account of the modal auxiliaries.
{"title":"Modals under epistemic tension","authors":"Guillermo Del Pinal, Brandon Waldon","doi":"10.1007/s11050-019-09151-w","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-019-09151-w","url":null,"abstract":"According to Kratzer’s influential account of epistemic <i>must</i> and <i>might</i>, these operators involve quantification over domains of possibilities determined by a modal base and an ordering source. Recently, this account has been challenged by invoking contexts of ‘epistemic tension’: i.e., cases in which an assertion that <i>must</i><span>(phi )</span> is conjoined with the possibility that <span>(lnot phi )</span>, and cases in which speakers try to downplay a previous assertion that <i>must</i><span>(phi )</span>, after finding out that <span>(lnot phi )</span>. Epistemic tensions have been invoked from two directions. Von Fintel and Gillies (Nat Lang Semant 18(4):351–383, 2010) propose a return to a simpler modal logic-inspired account: <i>must</i> and <i>might</i> still involve universal and existential quantification, but the domains of possibilities are determined solely by realistic modal bases. In contrast, Lassiter (Nat Lang Semant 24(2):117–163, 2016), following Swanson (Interactions with context. Ph.D. thesis, MIT, 2006; and in A. Eagan and B. Weatherstone, eds., Epistemic Modality, Oxford UP, 2011), proposes a more revisionary account which treats <i>must</i> and <i>might</i> as probabilistic operators. In this paper, we present a series of experiments to obtain reliable data on the degree of acceptability of various contexts of epistemic tension. Our experiments include novel variations that, we argue, are required to make progress in this debate. We show that restricted quantificational accounts à la Kratzer fit the overall pattern of results better than either of their recent competitors. In addition, our results help us identify the key components of restricted quantificational accounts, and on that basis propose some refinements and general constraints that should be satisfied by any account of the modal auxiliaries.","PeriodicalId":47108,"journal":{"name":"Natural Language Semantics","volume":"38 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2019-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138520790","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-03-18DOI: 10.1007/s11050-019-09152-9
N. Theiler, F. Roelofsen, M. Aloni
{"title":"Picky predicates: why believe doesn’t like interrogative complements, and other puzzles","authors":"N. Theiler, F. Roelofsen, M. Aloni","doi":"10.1007/s11050-019-09152-9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-019-09152-9","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47108,"journal":{"name":"Natural Language Semantics","volume":"27 1","pages":"95 - 134"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2019-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s11050-019-09152-9","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"52482999","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-03-05DOI: 10.1007/s11050-019-09150-x
Adrian Stegovec
The paper proposes a new type of control configuration: perspectival control. This involves control of a non-argument PRO that combines with a directive modal operator in the Mood domain. This PRO encodes the individual to whom the public commitments associated with the modal are anchored, and its presence can be detected in the syntax through a subject obviation effect. The empirical focus of the paper are Slovenian directive clauses (imperatives and subjunctives), but the analysis is shown to also have implications for analyses of other languages, as well as theories of directive clauses and the representation of discourse-related information in the syntax.
{"title":"Perspectival control and obviation in directive clauses","authors":"Adrian Stegovec","doi":"10.1007/s11050-019-09150-x","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-019-09150-x","url":null,"abstract":"The paper proposes a new type of control configuration: perspectival control. This involves control of a non-argument <i>PRO</i> that combines with a directive modal operator in the Mood domain. This <i>PRO</i> encodes the individual to whom the public commitments associated with the modal are anchored, and its presence can be detected in the syntax through a subject obviation effect. The empirical focus of the paper are Slovenian directive clauses (imperatives and subjunctives), but the analysis is shown to also have implications for analyses of other languages, as well as theories of directive clauses and the representation of discourse-related information in the syntax.","PeriodicalId":47108,"journal":{"name":"Natural Language Semantics","volume":"91 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2019-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138542838","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-01-22DOI: 10.1007/s11050-019-9149-7
Nadine Bade, Konstantin Sachs
Fox and Spector (Nat Lang Semant 26:1–50, 2018) use multiple instances of the exhaustivity operator EXH to derive the correct meaning of utterances that include pitch-focus marked disjunction in downward-entailing environments. They argue that the (sim ) operator evaluates alternatives to be used by EXH. Though the method is sound and gets the right result, we argue that the way in which EXH would need to interact with other instances of EXH, as well as other focus-sensitive elements, is at odds with how EXH is used to explain other phenomena. Specifically, the analysis in Fox and Spector (2018) predicts intervention effects for cases where EXH interacts with other focus-sensitive elements. This is problematic for many cases in which EXH is used to derive the desired inferences. We propose a different way of focus association for EXH that would work for the approach introduced in Fox and Spector (2018) as well as elsewhere. In addition, our account does not require a covert element to be focused.
Fox 和 Spector（Nat Lang Semant 26:1-50，2018）使用穷竭性算子 EXH 的多个实例，推导出在向下义环境中包含音高焦点标记的析取语的正确意义。他们认为，（sim ）算子评估了 EXH 将使用的替代方案。虽然这种方法是合理的，也得到了正确的结果，但我们认为，EXH需要与EXH的其他实例以及其他焦点敏感元素相互作用的方式，与EXH用来解释其他现象的方式是不一致的。具体来说，Fox和Spector（2018）的分析预测了EXH与其他焦点敏感元素相互作用时的干预效果。这对于许多使用 EXH 得出预期推论的情况来说是有问题的。我们为 EXH 提出了一种不同的焦点关联方式，这种方式适用于 Fox 和 Spector（2018）以及其他地方介绍的方法。此外，我们的解释并不要求隐蔽元素被聚焦。
{"title":"EXH passes on alternatives: a comment on Fox and Spector (2018)","authors":"Nadine Bade, Konstantin Sachs","doi":"10.1007/s11050-019-9149-7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-019-9149-7","url":null,"abstract":"Fox and Spector (Nat Lang Semant 26:1–50, 2018) use multiple instances of the exhaustivity operator EXH to derive the correct meaning of utterances that include pitch-focus marked disjunction in downward-entailing environments. They argue that the <span>(sim )</span> operator evaluates alternatives to be used by EXH. Though the method is sound and gets the right result, we argue that the way in which EXH would need to interact with other instances of EXH, as well as other focus-sensitive elements, is at odds with how EXH is used to explain other phenomena. Specifically, the analysis in Fox and Spector (2018) predicts intervention effects for cases where EXH interacts with other focus-sensitive elements. This is problematic for many cases in which EXH is used to derive the desired inferences. We propose a different way of focus association for EXH that would work for the approach introduced in Fox and Spector (2018) as well as elsewhere. In addition, our account does not require a covert element to be focused.","PeriodicalId":47108,"journal":{"name":"Natural Language Semantics","volume":"25 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2019-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140887913","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-01-03DOI: 10.1007/s11050-018-9148-0
Paul Crowley
This paper is about the phenomenon known as Neg-Raising. All previous analyses of Neg-Raising fall into one of two categories: syntactic and semantic/pragmatic. The syntactic approach derives the unexpected interpretation of Neg-Raising expressions from a Neg movement operation in the syntax (Fillmore in Word 19:208–231, 1963) while the semantic/pragmatic approach derives it as an inference attributed to an excluded middle associated with Neg-Raising predicates (Bartsch in Linguistische Berichte 27:1–7, 1973). In this squib, I discuss a collection of novel and known data, which I argue indicate that both a Neg movement operation as well as an excluded middle are necessary to account for the full range of data. I propose that Neg-Raising is an intrinsically semantic/pragmatic phenomenon and that the Neg movement operation is conditioned by the presence of an excluded middle. I offer a generalization that takes a step towards understanding this mysterious dependency.
{"title":"Neg-Raising and Neg movement","authors":"Paul Crowley","doi":"10.1007/s11050-018-9148-0","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-018-9148-0","url":null,"abstract":"This paper is about the phenomenon known as Neg-Raising. All previous analyses of Neg-Raising fall into one of two categories: syntactic and semantic/pragmatic. The syntactic approach derives the unexpected interpretation of Neg-Raising expressions from a Neg movement operation in the syntax (Fillmore in Word 19:208–231, 1963) while the semantic/pragmatic approach derives it as an inference attributed to an excluded middle associated with Neg-Raising predicates (Bartsch in Linguistische Berichte 27:1–7, 1973). In this squib, I discuss a collection of novel and known data, which I argue indicate that both a Neg movement operation as well as an excluded middle are necessary to account for the full range of data. I propose that Neg-Raising is an intrinsically semantic/pragmatic phenomenon and that the Neg movement operation is conditioned by the presence of an excluded middle. I offer a generalization that takes a step towards understanding this mysterious dependency.","PeriodicalId":47108,"journal":{"name":"Natural Language Semantics","volume":"117 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2019-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140887617","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-12-21DOI: 10.1007/s11050-018-9147-1
Seth Cable
This paper develops and defends a semantic/syntactic analysis of a curious set of negative gradable predicates in the Tlingit language, and shows that the analysis has some important consequences concerning the range of crosslinguistic variation in degree constructions. In Tlingit, certain negative gradable predicates are formed by negating a positive root and then applying an additional morphological operation: e.g. k’éi ‘good’, tlél ukʼé ‘not good’, tlél ushké ‘bad’. I show that (i) the negation in forms like tlél ushké ‘bad’ is VP-external, clausal negation, and is not an incorporated negation like English un-; and (ii) the meaning of these forms is indeed that of a gradable negative predicate, rather than the propositional negation of the positive predicate (cf. tlél ukʼé ‘not good’). Under the proposed analysis, the additional morphological operation observed in these forms is the reflex of a special degree relativizer, one that must undergo movement to Spec-NegP. In addition, Tlingit differs from English and other languages in that degree operators—like POS and comparative operators—can be attached high in the clause, above sentential negation. In addition to capturing various facts concerning these negative predicates, the proposed analysis raises some novel puzzles concerning intervention effects in the movement of degree operators, and provides support for the view that negative predicates like bad are morphosyntactically derived from positive predicates like good.
{"title":"The good, the ‘not good’, and the ‘not pretty’: negation in the negative predicates of Tlingit","authors":"Seth Cable","doi":"10.1007/s11050-018-9147-1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-018-9147-1","url":null,"abstract":"This paper develops and defends a semantic/syntactic analysis of a curious set of negative gradable predicates in the Tlingit language, and shows that the analysis has some important consequences concerning the range of crosslinguistic variation in degree constructions. In Tlingit, certain negative gradable predicates are formed by negating a positive root and then applying an additional morphological operation: e.g. <i>k’éi</i> ‘good’, <i>tlél ukʼé</i> ‘not good’, <i>tlél ushké</i> ‘bad’. I show that (i) the negation in forms like <i>tlél ushké</i> ‘bad’ is VP-external, clausal negation, and is not an incorporated negation like English <i>un</i>-; and (ii) the meaning of these forms is indeed that of a gradable negative predicate, rather than the propositional negation of the positive predicate (cf. tlél ukʼé ‘not good’). Under the proposed analysis, the additional morphological operation observed in these forms is the reflex of a special degree relativizer, one that must undergo movement to Spec-NegP. In addition, Tlingit differs from English and other languages in that degree operators—like <i>POS</i> and comparative operators—can be attached high in the clause, above sentential negation. In addition to capturing various facts concerning these negative predicates, the proposed analysis raises some novel puzzles concerning intervention effects in the movement of degree operators, and provides support for the view that negative predicates like <i>bad</i> are morphosyntactically derived from positive predicates like <i>good</i>.","PeriodicalId":47108,"journal":{"name":"Natural Language Semantics","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2018-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140887846","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-12-01DOI: 10.1007/s11050-018-9146-2
Bernhard Schwarz, Alexandra Simonenko
{"title":"Factive islands and meaning-driven unacceptability","authors":"Bernhard Schwarz, Alexandra Simonenko","doi":"10.1007/s11050-018-9146-2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-018-9146-2","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47108,"journal":{"name":"Natural Language Semantics","volume":"26 1","pages":"253 - 279"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s11050-018-9146-2","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"52482965","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-11-02DOI: 10.1007/s11050-018-9145-3
Alexandre Cremers
{"title":"Plurality effects in an exhaustification-based theory of embedded questions","authors":"Alexandre Cremers","doi":"10.1007/s11050-018-9145-3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-018-9145-3","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47108,"journal":{"name":"Natural Language Semantics","volume":"9 1","pages":"193 - 251"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2018-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s11050-018-9145-3","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"52482945","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：