Experimental studies on it-clefts and predicate interpretation

IF 1.1 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS
Agata Renans, J. Veaugh-Geiss
{"title":"Experimental studies on it-clefts and predicate interpretation","authors":"Agata Renans, J. Veaugh-Geiss","doi":"10.3765/sp.12.11","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There is an ongoing discussion in the literature whether the series of sentences ‘It’s not α that did P. α and β did P.’ is acceptable or not. Whereas the homogeneity approach in Buring & Križ 2013, Križ 2016, and Križ 2017 predicts these sentences to be unacceptable, the alternative-based approach predicts acceptability depending on the predicate being interpreted distributively or non- distributively (among others, Horn 1981, Velleman et al. 2012, Renans 2016a,b). We report on three experiments testing the predictions of both types of approaches. These studies provide empirical data that not only bears on these approaches, but also allows us to distinguish between different accounts of cleft exhaustivity that might otherwise make the same predictions. The results of the three studies reported here suggest that the acceptability of clefts depends on the interpretation of the predicate, thereby posing a serious challenge to the homogeneity approach, and contributing to the ongoing discussion on the semantics of it -clefts. \n \n \nEARLY ACCESS","PeriodicalId":45550,"journal":{"name":"Semantics & Pragmatics","volume":"12 1","pages":"11"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Semantics & Pragmatics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.12.11","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

There is an ongoing discussion in the literature whether the series of sentences ‘It’s not α that did P. α and β did P.’ is acceptable or not. Whereas the homogeneity approach in Buring & Križ 2013, Križ 2016, and Križ 2017 predicts these sentences to be unacceptable, the alternative-based approach predicts acceptability depending on the predicate being interpreted distributively or non- distributively (among others, Horn 1981, Velleman et al. 2012, Renans 2016a,b). We report on three experiments testing the predictions of both types of approaches. These studies provide empirical data that not only bears on these approaches, but also allows us to distinguish between different accounts of cleft exhaustivity that might otherwise make the same predictions. The results of the three studies reported here suggest that the acceptability of clefts depends on the interpretation of the predicate, thereby posing a serious challenge to the homogeneity approach, and contributing to the ongoing discussion on the semantics of it -clefts. EARLY ACCESS
it-cleft与谓词解释的实验研究
文献中一直在讨论“不是α做了P。α和β做了P”这一系列句子是否可以接受。Buring&Križ2013、Križ2016和Križ2017中的同质性方法预测这些句子是不可接受的,而基于替代的方法根据被分布或非分布解释的谓词预测可接受性(其中,Horn 1981,Velleman等人2012,Renans 2016a,b)。我们报告了三个实验,测试了这两种方法的预测。这些研究提供了经验数据,这些数据不仅与这些方法有关,而且使我们能够区分可能做出相同预测的不同解释。本文报道的三项研究结果表明,clefts的可接受性取决于对谓语的解释,从而对同质性方法提出了严重挑战,并有助于对it-clefts语义的持续讨论。早期访问
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
审稿时长
50 weeks
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信