Expressives and argument extension

Nicolás Lo Guercio, Eleonora Orlando
{"title":"Expressives and argument extension","authors":"Nicolás Lo Guercio, Eleonora Orlando","doi":"10.3765/salt.v1i0.5334","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this article, we discuss expressive adjectives ('the damn keys') and epithets ('that bastard John'). In recent literature (see Potts 2005 and Gutzmann 2019), these expressions have received a parallel semantic treatment. However, EAs and epithets present a remarkable difference, namely, only the former exhibit argument extension, an apparent mismatch between  syntax and semantics whereby EAs affect a syntactic constituent other than the one they directly modify. After a brief introduction and the presentation of the puzzle (sections 1 and 2), we advance a novel semantico-pragmatic approach to EAs that explains this difference (section 3). According to this view, EAs are Isolated CIs, roughly put,  expressions that bear propositional expressive meaning (and no at-issue meaning), and do not interact with the surrounding at-issue material in terms of functional application. In section 4, we present data that lends additional support to our proposal (and represents a prima facie challenge for some alternative approaches). Finally, in section 5 we discuss the alternative approaches to argument extension in Potts 2005 and Gutzmann 2019, and show some of their shortcomings.","PeriodicalId":21626,"journal":{"name":"Semantics and Linguistic Theory","volume":"63 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Semantics and Linguistic Theory","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v1i0.5334","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

In this article, we discuss expressive adjectives ('the damn keys') and epithets ('that bastard John'). In recent literature (see Potts 2005 and Gutzmann 2019), these expressions have received a parallel semantic treatment. However, EAs and epithets present a remarkable difference, namely, only the former exhibit argument extension, an apparent mismatch between  syntax and semantics whereby EAs affect a syntactic constituent other than the one they directly modify. After a brief introduction and the presentation of the puzzle (sections 1 and 2), we advance a novel semantico-pragmatic approach to EAs that explains this difference (section 3). According to this view, EAs are Isolated CIs, roughly put,  expressions that bear propositional expressive meaning (and no at-issue meaning), and do not interact with the surrounding at-issue material in terms of functional application. In section 4, we present data that lends additional support to our proposal (and represents a prima facie challenge for some alternative approaches). Finally, in section 5 we discuss the alternative approaches to argument extension in Potts 2005 and Gutzmann 2019, and show some of their shortcomings.
表达式和参数扩展
在这篇文章中,我们讨论了表达性形容词(“该死的钥匙”)和绰号(“那个混蛋约翰”)。在最近的文献中(参见Potts 2005和Gutzmann 2019),这些表达得到了平行的语义处理。然而,ea和修饰语有一个显著的区别,即只有前者表现出论点延伸,这是语法和语义之间明显的不匹配,即ea影响的是它们直接修饰的语法成分以外的句法成分。在简要介绍和介绍难题(第1节和第2节)之后,我们提出了一种新的语义语用方法来解释这种差异(第3节)。根据这种观点,ea是孤立的ci,粗略地说,具有命题表达意义(而没有问题意义)的表达,并且在功能应用方面不与周围的问题材料相互作用。在第4节中,我们提供的数据为我们的建议提供了额外的支持(并且代表了对某些替代方法的初步挑战)。最后,在第5节中,我们讨论了Potts 2005和Gutzmann 2019中论证扩展的替代方法,并展示了它们的一些缺点。
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