German clefts address unexpected questions

Swantje Tönnis, Judith Tonhauser
{"title":"German clefts address unexpected questions","authors":"Swantje Tönnis, Judith Tonhauser","doi":"10.3765/salt.v1i0.5359","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, we provide empirical evidence for Tönnis' (2021) hypothesis that German cleft sentences address relatively unexpected questions in discourse while their canonical variants address relatively expected questions. We present an experiment that measures the relative preference between the German cleft and its canonical variant in contexts that differ with respect to how expected the question is that they answer. The expectedness of the question was measured separately in a norming study. The result of the experiment supports analyses of German clefts that take discourse expectations into account when analyzing the acceptability of clefts in contrast to canonical sentences. Approaches that primarily focus on differences in exhaustivity (e.g., De Veaugh-Geiss et al. 2018) or contrast (e.g., Rochemont 1986) need to be adapted in order to account for the results.","PeriodicalId":21626,"journal":{"name":"Semantics and Linguistic Theory","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Semantics and Linguistic Theory","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v1i0.5359","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this paper, we provide empirical evidence for Tönnis' (2021) hypothesis that German cleft sentences address relatively unexpected questions in discourse while their canonical variants address relatively expected questions. We present an experiment that measures the relative preference between the German cleft and its canonical variant in contexts that differ with respect to how expected the question is that they answer. The expectedness of the question was measured separately in a norming study. The result of the experiment supports analyses of German clefts that take discourse expectations into account when analyzing the acceptability of clefts in contrast to canonical sentences. Approaches that primarily focus on differences in exhaustivity (e.g., De Veaugh-Geiss et al. 2018) or contrast (e.g., Rochemont 1986) need to be adapted in order to account for the results.
德国的裂痕解决了意想不到的问题
在本文中,我们为Tönnis(2021)的假设提供了经验证据,即德语裂隙句解决了话语中相对意想不到的问题,而它们的规范变体解决了相对预期的问题。我们提出了一个实验,测量德语裂缝和它的规范变体之间的相对偏好,在不同的情况下,就如何预期的问题是他们的回答。问题的预期性在一项规范化研究中被单独测量。实验结果支持了在对比标准句分析裂隙可接受性时考虑语篇期望的德语裂隙分析。为了解释结果,需要调整主要关注穷尽性差异的方法(例如,De vaugh - geiss等人,2018)或对比(例如,Rochemont 1986)。
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
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信