Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung
Not a member yet
1139 research outputs found
Sort by
A closer look at the perceptual source in copy raising constructions
Get PDFSimple claims with the verb ‘seem’, as well as the specific sensory verbs, ‘look’, ‘sound’, etc., require the speaker to have some relevant kind of perceptual acquaintance (Pearson, 2013; Ninan, 2014). But different forms of these reports differ in their perceptual requirements. For example, the copy raising (CR) report, ‘Tom seems like he’s cooking’ requires the speaker to have seen Tom, while its expletive subject (ES) variant, ‘It seems like Tom is cooking’, does not (Rogers, 1972; Asudeh and Toivonen, 2012). This contrast has led some theorists to hold that the matrix subject in CR constructions is uniformly interpreted as the perceptual source (p-source) (Asudeh and Toivonen, 2012; Rett and Hyams, 2014). Others, based on examples of CR reports that seem not to require perception of the referent of the matrix subject, have taken the p-source interpretation instead to be non-uniform across CR reports (Landau, 2011; Doran, 2015). We reconsider these theoretical approaches to copy raising in light of new experimental work probing the sensitivity of these requirements to the matrix verb, the embedded ‘like’-clause, and the context. While we find some motivation for a non-uniform p-source analysis, it comes from importantly different cases than those others have relied on. Furthermore, our findings cast doubt on the prevalent assumption that the perceptual requirements of CR reports are to be captured solely by the presence or absence of the p-source interpretation. We suggest that the data motivating a non-uniform p-source view are better captured by an alternative approach, which makes use of a more minimal evidential source role, in place of the perceptual source role. We close by considering the relationship between English copy raising and evidential constructions cross-linguistically
On quantification over questions: A case study of exhaustification in Japanese
Get PDFThis paper supports the idea that the exceptive meaning denoted by the Japanese exhaustive particle dake is a conventional implicature, and shows that the Contrastive-marked (wa-marked) element takes scope higher than the proposition. I also provide an explanation for the unavailability of dake-wa in wh-questions using Krifka’s (2001b) non-Boolean algebra of Speech Acts
A parallel account of epistemic modals and predicates of personal taste
Get PDFEpistemic modals (might, must) and predicates of personal taste (tasty, fun) show parallel behavior related to whose knowledge or taste is relevant for their interpretation. To account for the similarity, I extend Lasersohn’s (2005) account of predicates of personal taste to epistemic modals, using his “judge” parameter for the person whose knowledge is relevant. Along the way, I argue for modifications to Lasersohn’s view. I also propose a way to place the account in a Stalnakerian theory of conversation
The \u27Separate Performative\u27 Account of the German Right Dislocation
No full textIn my paper, I show that the so-called German right dislocation actually comprises two distinct constructions, which I label \u27right dislocation proper\u27 and \u27afterthought\u27. These differ in their prosodic and syntactic properties, as well as in their discourse functions. The paper is primarily concerned with the right dislocation proper (RD). I present a semantic analysis of RD based on the ‘separate performative’ account of Potts (2004, 2005) and Portner (forthc.). This analysis allows a description of the semantic contribution of RD to its host sentence, as well as explaining certain semantic constraints on the kind of NP in the RD construction
Reflexivity and Reciprocity with(out) Underspecification
Get PDFIn languages like English, reflexivity and reciprocity are expressed by distinct proforms. However, many languages, such as Cheyenne, express reflexivity and reciprocity with a single proform. In this paper I utilize Dynamic Plural Logic (van den Berg, 1996) to a draw a semantic parallel between reflexive and reciprocal anaphors in English. I propose that they contribute overlapping but distinct requirements on the relations introduced by transitive verbs, requirements which fully specify reflexivity and reciprocity. This parallel is then extended to Cheyenne by appealing to underspecification. I propose the Cheyenne affix which expresses both reflexivity and reciprocity contributes only the shared requirement of the English anaphors. It is thus underspecified, not ambiguous. This accounts for its compatibility with both singular and plural antecedents as well as its variety of construals
Not \u27Nearly\u27 Synonymous. Similarities and Differences between \u27almost\u27 and \u27nearly\u27
No full textIn this paper we look at the difference in distribution and meaning between almost and nearly. Nearly has to do with expectations and is in general uneasy as a modifier of negative quantifiers, while it is grammatical in the scope of negation. On the other hand, almost is at best marginal in the scope of negation (unless an echo context is provided) and in combination with the NPI any. We propose that, when nearly is in the scope of negation, it loses its scalar component and its literal meaning of physical proximity can be accessed by negation and modified by it. This accounts for the particular interpretation of nearly under negation. To account for the contextual expectations raised by nearly, we suggest that the operator EVEN is instantiated by the presence of nearly and that EVEN does not interfere with the alternatives made salient by scalar operators like almost and nearly (contra Penka, 2005). We then propose an alternative explanation for the ungrammaticality of the combination between almost- NPI any and the acceptability of nearly-NPI any
Anankastic Conditionals and Salient Goals
Get PDFIn this paper I evaluate two recent analyses of anankastic conditionals, the designated goal analysis by von Fintel and Iatridou (2004) and the modal base restriction account of Penka, Krasikowa and von Stechow (2004). I will show that both theories make the wrong predictions in scenarios with multiple non-conflicting goals. To solve the problem, I propose that ordering sources select salient goals from the context of utterance. For anankastic conditionals the ordering source selects the goal described in the if-clause. At the end of this paper I present some arguments against the recent analysis of anankastic conditionals as counterfactuals by von Stechow, Krasikowa and Penka (2004)
Togetherness
Get PDFThis paper investigates the notion of ‘togetherness’ expressed by adverbials like together in English or ensemble in French. We show that the natural division between the main uses of these adverbials is aspectual: whereas achievements impose no significant restrictions, non-achievements demand that the eventualities that are grouped ‘together’ be causally controlled or coordinated. In particular, contrary to what is frequently assumed in the literature, it is not sufficient that they occupy the same spatio-temporal location. This leads us to propose a new picture of togetherness, which accounts for the intuitions of ‘grouping’ (Lasersohn) or ‘integration’ (Moltmann) but puts them in a different perspective
Free Choice in Modal Contexts
Get PDFThis article proposes a new analysis of modal expressions which (i) explains the difference between necessity and possibility modals with respect to the licensing of Free Choice any and (ii) accounts for the related phenomena of Free Choice disjunction in permissions and other possibility statements. Any and or are analyzed as operators introducing sets of alternative propositions. Modals are treated as quantifiers over these sets of alternatives. In this way they can be sensitive to the alternatives any and or introduce in their scope
Producer Interpretations of the English Pre-Nominal Genitive
Get PDFThis paper presents a theory of the pre-nominal genitive in English based on the claims that it is argument-only and polymorphic, on the one hand allowing a control interpretation delivered by ‘s itself, and, on the other hand, three ‘constructional interpretations’: an inherently relational, a partwhole, and a producer interpretation delivered by the head noun of the genitive construction. The paper addresses four types of evidence seeming to raise problems for the claim that producer interpretations are semantic, i.e. available as default interpretations, rather than pragmatic. We argue that in spite of this evidence, the hypothesis can be upheld. Finally, independent evidence is adduced concerning the semantics of the Hebrew Construct State Construction, which allows precisely the range of semantic interpretations we have proposed for the English pre-nominal genitive, including the producer interpretation, while not allowing pragmatic interpretations