{"title":"无知和让步与上位修饰语:跨语言视角","authors":"Yi-Hsun Chen","doi":"10.1007/s10988-023-09400-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Superlative modifiers (SMs) are known to demonstrate an ambiguity between an epistemic reading (EPI) conveying speaker ignorance and a concessive reading (CON) conveying speaker concession. Such EPI-CON ambiguity has often been taken, implicitly or explicitly, to be a lexical coincidence. While there may be some justification for such a position when a single language is considered, we argue for an intrinsic connection between the two readings based on cross-linguistic considerations. This paper focuses on English <i>at least</i> and Mandarin <i>zhi-shao</i> as representative of superlative modifiers across a wide range of languages to propose a unified account of the two readings. The proposal builds on Biezma (2013) in relying on the role of focus and scalarity in developing a unified semantics for the two readings, but differs in capitalizing on the fact that cross-linguistically superlative modifiers use the same morphological formants as quantity superlatives. It also follows Biezma (2013) in taking pragmatic factors as crucial in deriving the variation between EPI and CON readings. Elaborating on her account, it offers a more nuanced picture of the ways in which EPI is sensitive to the question of informativity while CON relates to issues of evaluativity. The paper shows how the proposed semantics and pragmatics account for several well-known properties of superlative modifiers. It ends by noting several open issues in the literature on this topic that the current proposal sheds new light on.</p>","PeriodicalId":47748,"journal":{"name":"Linguistics and Philosophy","volume":"67 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ignorance and concession with superlative modifiers: a cross-linguistic perspective\",\"authors\":\"Yi-Hsun Chen\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10988-023-09400-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Superlative modifiers (SMs) are known to demonstrate an ambiguity between an epistemic reading (EPI) conveying speaker ignorance and a concessive reading (CON) conveying speaker concession. Such EPI-CON ambiguity has often been taken, implicitly or explicitly, to be a lexical coincidence. While there may be some justification for such a position when a single language is considered, we argue for an intrinsic connection between the two readings based on cross-linguistic considerations. This paper focuses on English <i>at least</i> and Mandarin <i>zhi-shao</i> as representative of superlative modifiers across a wide range of languages to propose a unified account of the two readings. The proposal builds on Biezma (2013) in relying on the role of focus and scalarity in developing a unified semantics for the two readings, but differs in capitalizing on the fact that cross-linguistically superlative modifiers use the same morphological formants as quantity superlatives. It also follows Biezma (2013) in taking pragmatic factors as crucial in deriving the variation between EPI and CON readings. Elaborating on her account, it offers a more nuanced picture of the ways in which EPI is sensitive to the question of informativity while CON relates to issues of evaluativity. The paper shows how the proposed semantics and pragmatics account for several well-known properties of superlative modifiers. It ends by noting several open issues in the literature on this topic that the current proposal sheds new light on.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47748,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Linguistics and Philosophy\",\"volume\":\"67 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Linguistics and Philosophy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-023-09400-6\",\"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":"Linguistics and Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-023-09400-6","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
众所周知,高级修饰语(SMs)在表示说话人无知的认识性读法(EPI)和表示说话人让步的让步性读法(CON)之间表现出一种模糊性。这种 EPI-CON 的模糊性常常被或明或暗地认为是词汇上的巧合。虽然在考虑单一语言时,这种立场可能有一定的道理,但我们基于跨语言的考虑,认为这两种读法之间存在内在联系。本文以英语的 "至少 "和普通话的 "之少 "为研究对象,将其作为多种语言中超格修饰语的代表,提出了两种读法的统一解释。该建议以 Biezma(2013)为基础,依靠焦点和标度的作用为两种读法建立统一的语义,但不同之处在于利用了跨语言的超修饰语与数量超修饰语使用相同的形态构式这一事实。该研究还遵循 Biezma(2013 年)的观点,将语用因素作为得出 EPI 和 CON 读法之间差异的关键因素。在 Biezma 的论述基础上,本文对 EPI 对信息性问题的敏感性和 CON 对评价性问题的敏感性进行了更细致的描述。论文展示了所提出的语义学和语用学是如何解释超褒义修饰语的几个众所周知的特性的。最后,论文指出了有关这一主题的文献中存在的几个未决问题,而当前的提议为这些问题提供了新的思路。
Ignorance and concession with superlative modifiers: a cross-linguistic perspective
Superlative modifiers (SMs) are known to demonstrate an ambiguity between an epistemic reading (EPI) conveying speaker ignorance and a concessive reading (CON) conveying speaker concession. Such EPI-CON ambiguity has often been taken, implicitly or explicitly, to be a lexical coincidence. While there may be some justification for such a position when a single language is considered, we argue for an intrinsic connection between the two readings based on cross-linguistic considerations. This paper focuses on English at least and Mandarin zhi-shao as representative of superlative modifiers across a wide range of languages to propose a unified account of the two readings. The proposal builds on Biezma (2013) in relying on the role of focus and scalarity in developing a unified semantics for the two readings, but differs in capitalizing on the fact that cross-linguistically superlative modifiers use the same morphological formants as quantity superlatives. It also follows Biezma (2013) in taking pragmatic factors as crucial in deriving the variation between EPI and CON readings. Elaborating on her account, it offers a more nuanced picture of the ways in which EPI is sensitive to the question of informativity while CON relates to issues of evaluativity. The paper shows how the proposed semantics and pragmatics account for several well-known properties of superlative modifiers. It ends by noting several open issues in the literature on this topic that the current proposal sheds new light on.
期刊介绍:
Linguistics and Philosophy focuses on issues related to structure and meaning in natural language, as addressed in the semantics, philosophy of language, pragmatics and related disciplines, in particular the following areas: philosophical theories of meaning and truth, reference, description, entailment, presupposition, implicatures, context-dependence, and speech actslinguistic theories of semantic interpretation in relation to syntactic structure and prosody, of discourse structure, lexcial semantics and semantic changepsycholinguistic theories of semantic interpretation and issues of the processing and acquisition of natural language, and the relation of semantic interpretation to other cognitive facultiesmathematical and logical properties of natural language and general aspects of computational linguisticsphilosophical questions raised by linguistics as a science: linguistics methodology, properties of linguistic theories and frameworks, and the relation of linguistics to other fields of inquiryContributions may be in the form of articles, replies, or review articles. Linguistics and Philosophy is indexed in the ISI/Social Science Citation Index.