略读升-降-升等高线:语境和语义因素

Alexander Göbel, Michael Wagner
{"title":"略读升-降-升等高线:语境和语义因素","authors":"Alexander Göbel, Michael Wagner","doi":"10.3765/elm.2.5395","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper presents three auditory rating experiments on the rise-fall-rise contour (RFR). Experiment 1 provides experimental evidence that the RFR makes disagreeing with a prior statement more natural than neutral intonation would. Additionally, the data show that the RFR exhibits a valence asymmetry, noted by Göbel (2019): the amelioration of a disagreement is greater when the RFR is used in a positive reply to a negative statement than in a negative reply to a positive statement. Experiments 2 and 3 investigate factors contributing to this asymmetry, showing that it disappears in replies to questions and is weakened when the reply contains an additive particle. Based on these results, we argue that the RFR has a scalar meaning, following Göbel (2019), with the relevant scale being contextually determined and resulting in an ambiguity resembling the Focus-particle at least.","PeriodicalId":154565,"journal":{"name":"Experiments in Linguistic Meaning","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On a concessive reading of the rise-fall-rise contour: contextual and semantic factors\",\"authors\":\"Alexander Göbel, Michael Wagner\",\"doi\":\"10.3765/elm.2.5395\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper presents three auditory rating experiments on the rise-fall-rise contour (RFR). Experiment 1 provides experimental evidence that the RFR makes disagreeing with a prior statement more natural than neutral intonation would. Additionally, the data show that the RFR exhibits a valence asymmetry, noted by Göbel (2019): the amelioration of a disagreement is greater when the RFR is used in a positive reply to a negative statement than in a negative reply to a positive statement. Experiments 2 and 3 investigate factors contributing to this asymmetry, showing that it disappears in replies to questions and is weakened when the reply contains an additive particle. Based on these results, we argue that the RFR has a scalar meaning, following Göbel (2019), with the relevant scale being contextually determined and resulting in an ambiguity resembling the Focus-particle at least.\",\"PeriodicalId\":154565,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Experiments in Linguistic Meaning\",\"volume\":\"43 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Experiments in Linguistic Meaning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3765/elm.2.5395\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Experiments in Linguistic Meaning","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3765/elm.2.5395","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文介绍了三种基于上升-下降-上升轮廓(RFR)的听觉分级实验。实验1提供了实验证据,表明RFR比中性语调更自然地不同意先前的陈述。此外,数据显示RFR表现出价不对称,Göbel(2019)指出:当RFR用于对否定陈述的肯定答复时,对分歧的改善要大于对肯定陈述的否定答复。实验2和3研究了导致这种不对称的因素,结果表明,这种不对称在回答问题时消失,当回答中包含一个附加粒子时,这种不对称就会减弱。基于这些结果,我们认为RFR具有标量意义,遵循Göbel(2019),相关尺度由上下文中确定,导致歧义至少类似于焦点粒子。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
On a concessive reading of the rise-fall-rise contour: contextual and semantic factors
This paper presents three auditory rating experiments on the rise-fall-rise contour (RFR). Experiment 1 provides experimental evidence that the RFR makes disagreeing with a prior statement more natural than neutral intonation would. Additionally, the data show that the RFR exhibits a valence asymmetry, noted by Göbel (2019): the amelioration of a disagreement is greater when the RFR is used in a positive reply to a negative statement than in a negative reply to a positive statement. Experiments 2 and 3 investigate factors contributing to this asymmetry, showing that it disappears in replies to questions and is weakened when the reply contains an additive particle. Based on these results, we argue that the RFR has a scalar meaning, following Göbel (2019), with the relevant scale being contextually determined and resulting in an ambiguity resembling the Focus-particle at least.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The rise and particularly fall of presuppositions: Evidence from duality in universals Reading times show effects of contextual complexity and uncertainty in comprehension of German universal quantifiers Five degrees of (non)sense: Investigating the connection between bullshit receptivity and susceptibility to semantic illusions Real-time processing of indexical and generic expressions: Insights from, and implications for, COVID-related public health messages Semantics of Non-Doxastic Attitude Ascriptions from Experimental Perspective
×
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