{"title":"主动岛和命题问题","authors":"Matías Verdecchia","doi":"10.1007/s11050-022-09187-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In this squib, I evaluate the contradiction analysis (Abrusán in Natural Language Semantics 19(3):257–321, 2011, in Weak island semantics, 2014) and the necessary infelicity analysis (Oshima in Washio et al. (eds.), New frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2007; Schwarz and Simonenko in Natural Language Semantics 26(3–4):253–279, 2018b) of factive islands in light of a pattern that has not been previously discussed in the literature: questions about propositions. I argue that while the necessary infelicity approach can straightforwardly explain the acceptability of this kind of question, the contradiction account undergenerates, since it wrongly predicts their ungrammaticality. I claim that this prediction follows from the assumption that the domain of quantification contains contraries. Therefore, the main contribution of this squib is the observation that such an assumption cannot play an explanatory role in accounting for factive islands.</p>","PeriodicalId":47108,"journal":{"name":"Natural Language Semantics","volume":"79 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Factive islands and questions about propositions\",\"authors\":\"Matías Verdecchia\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11050-022-09187-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>In this squib, I evaluate the contradiction analysis (Abrusán in Natural Language Semantics 19(3):257–321, 2011, in Weak island semantics, 2014) and the necessary infelicity analysis (Oshima in Washio et al. (eds.), New frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2007; Schwarz and Simonenko in Natural Language Semantics 26(3–4):253–279, 2018b) of factive islands in light of a pattern that has not been previously discussed in the literature: questions about propositions. I argue that while the necessary infelicity approach can straightforwardly explain the acceptability of this kind of question, the contradiction account undergenerates, since it wrongly predicts their ungrammaticality. I claim that this prediction follows from the assumption that the domain of quantification contains contraries. Therefore, the main contribution of this squib is the observation that such an assumption cannot play an explanatory role in accounting for factive islands.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47108,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Natural Language Semantics\",\"volume\":\"79 9\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Natural Language Semantics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-022-09187-5\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Natural Language Semantics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-022-09187-5","RegionNum":1,"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
摘要
在这个短评中,我评估了矛盾分析(Abrusán在自然语言语义学19(3):257-321,2011,在弱岛语义学,2014)和必要的不正确分析(Oshima In Washio et al.(主编),人工智能新前沿,2007;Schwarz和Simonenko在《自然语言语义学》26(3-4):253 - 279,2018b)中提出了一种以前没有在文献中讨论过的模式:关于命题的问题。我认为,虽然必要谬误的方法可以直接解释这类问题的可接受性,但矛盾解释是不充分的,因为它错误地预测了它们的不语法性。我认为,这一预测是基于量化领域包含对立面的假设。因此,这个哑炮的主要贡献是观察到这种假设不能在解释活动岛屿方面发挥解释作用。
In this squib, I evaluate the contradiction analysis (Abrusán in Natural Language Semantics 19(3):257–321, 2011, in Weak island semantics, 2014) and the necessary infelicity analysis (Oshima in Washio et al. (eds.), New frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2007; Schwarz and Simonenko in Natural Language Semantics 26(3–4):253–279, 2018b) of factive islands in light of a pattern that has not been previously discussed in the literature: questions about propositions. I argue that while the necessary infelicity approach can straightforwardly explain the acceptability of this kind of question, the contradiction account undergenerates, since it wrongly predicts their ungrammaticality. I claim that this prediction follows from the assumption that the domain of quantification contains contraries. Therefore, the main contribution of this squib is the observation that such an assumption cannot play an explanatory role in accounting for factive islands.
期刊介绍:
Natural Language Semantics is devoted to semantics and its interfaces in grammar, especially syntax. The journal seeks to encourage the convergence of approaches employing the concepts of logic and philosophy with perspectives of generative grammar on the relations between meaning and structure. Natural Language Semantics publishes studies focused on linguistic phenomena as opposed to those dealing primarily with the field''s methodological and formal foundations. Representative topics include, but are not limited to, quantification, negation, modality, genericity, tense, aspect, aktionsarten, focus, presuppositions, anaphora, definiteness, plurals, mass nouns, adjectives, adverbial modification, nominalization, ellipsis, and interrogatives. The journal features mainly research articles, but also short squibs as well as remarks on and replies to pertinent books and articles.The journal has an Editorial Assistant, Christine Bartels, a copy editor with a PhD in linguistics who personally shepherds accepted manuscripts through the production process.Since 2009 this journal is covered by ISI/Social Sciences Citation Index.Springer fully understands that access to your work is important to you and to the sponsors of your research. We are listed as a green publisher in the SHERPA/RoMEO database, as we allow self-archiving, but most importantly we are fully transparent about your rights. Read more about author''s rights on: http://www.springer.com/gp/open-access/authors-rights