Natural Language Semantics最新文献_第7页

Neg Raising and ellipsis (and related issues) revisited 负提升和省略(及相关问题)重新审视

IF 1.1 1区文学

Natural Language Semantics Pub Date : 2020-02-15 DOI: 10.1007/s11050-020-09161-z

Pauline Jacobson

{"title":"Neg Raising and ellipsis (and related issues) revisited","authors":"Pauline Jacobson","doi":"10.1007/s11050-020-09161-z","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-020-09161-z","url":null,"abstract":"There have been a variety of arguments over the decades both for and against syntactic Neg Raising (NR). Two recent papers (Jacobson in Linguist Inq 49(3):559–576, 2018; Crowley in Nat Lang Semant 27(1), 1–17, 2019) focus on the interaction of NR effects with ellipsis. These papers examine similar types of data, but come to opposite conclusion: Jacobson shows that the ellipsis facts provide evidence against syntactic NR, whereas Crowley argues in favor of syntactic NR. The present paper revisits the evidence, showing that the key case in Crowley (2019) that he uses to argue for syntactic NR contains a confound, while the broader set of evidence in Jacobson (2018) continues to support the non-syntactic account. In addition, I reply here to an argument for syntactic NR due originally to Prince (Language 52:404–426, 1976) and Smaby (pers. comm. to Prince) and elaborated on by Crowley. The key generalization can be shown to disappear once contexts are carefully controlled for. Moreover, Crowley extends the Prince/Smaby argument to show that no inference-based account of NR can survive, but this conclusion rests on the claim that there are cases where ever is vacuous; I show that this is not the case. I also consider the question—discussed in much previous literature—of why under the syntactic approach to NR the class of predicates allowing NR is limited to just those which easily support an Excluded Middle inference. Crowley (2019) attempts to provide a principled explanation, speculating that NR is allowed just in case it is ‘semantically vacuous’. I argue that this proposal is problematic and so the challenge to syntactic approaches remains. Finally, I provide a new argument against syntactic NR which centers on the behavior of guess.","PeriodicalId":47108,"journal":{"name":"Natural Language Semantics","volume":"217 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2020-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138542837","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Definiteness projection 清晰度投影

IF 1.1 1区文学

Natural Language Semantics Pub Date : 2019-12-23 DOI: 10.1007/s11050-019-09159-2

M. Mandelkern, Daniel Rothschild

引用次数: 3

Origins of weak crossover: when dynamic semantics meets event semantics 弱交叉的起源:当动态语义遇到事件语义时

IF 1.1 1区文学

Natural Language Semantics Pub Date : 2019-12-14 DOI: 10.1007/s11050-019-09158-3

Gennaro Chierchia

{"title":"Origins of weak crossover: when dynamic semantics meets event semantics","authors":"Gennaro Chierchia","doi":"10.1007/s11050-019-09158-3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-019-09158-3","url":null,"abstract":"Approaches to anaphora generally seek to explain the potential for a DP to covary with a pronoun in terms of a combination of factors, such as (i) the inherent semantics of the antecedent DP (i.e., whether it is indefinite, quantificational, referential), (ii) its scope properties, and (iii) its structural position. A case in point is Reinhart’s classic condition on bound anaphora, paraphrasable as A DP can antecede a pronoun pro only if the DP c-commands pro at S-structure, supplemented with some extra machinery to allow indefinites to covary with pronouns beyond their c-command domains. In the present paper, I explore a different take. I propose that anaphora is governed not by DPs and their properties; it is governed by predicates (i.e., in the unary case, objects of type <e, t>) and their properties. To use a metaphor from dynamic semantics: discourse referents can only be ‘activated’ by predicates, never by DPs (Dynamic Predication Principle). This conceptually simple assumption is shown to have far-reaching consequences. For one, it yields a new take on weak crossover, arguably worthy of consideration. Moreover, it leads to a further general “restatement of the anaphora question”, in Reinhart’s (Linguist Philos 6: 47–88, 1983) words.","PeriodicalId":47108,"journal":{"name":"Natural Language Semantics","volume":"27 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2019-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138520808","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 5

Doubling unconditionals and relative sluicing 双重无条件条件和相对闸门

IF 1.1 1区文学

Natural Language Semantics Pub Date : 2019-11-20 DOI: 10.1007/s11050-019-09157-4

Radek Šimík

引用次数: 4

The *hope-wh puzzle “希望-什么”难题

IF 1.1 1区文学

Natural Language Semantics Pub Date : 2019-10-23 DOI: 10.1007/s11050-019-09156-5

W. Uegaki, Y. Sudo

引用次数: 8

Licensing of PPI indefinites: Movement or pseudoscope? PPI不确定性的许可：运动还是伪范围？

IF 1.1 1区文学

Natural Language Semantics Pub Date : 2019-08-30 DOI: 10.1007/s11050-019-09155-6

Vincent Homer, R. Bhatt

引用次数: 7

Triviality and interrogative embedding: context sensitivity, factivity, and neg-raising 琐碎性和疑问嵌入:上下文敏感性、实体性和否定性

IF 1.1 1区文学

Natural Language Semantics Pub Date : 2019-06-06 DOI: 10.1007/s11050-019-09153-8

Clemens Mayr

引用次数: 19

The role of focus intonation in implicature computation: a comparison with only and also 焦点语调在语义计算中的作用:与only和also的比较

IF 1.1 1区文学

Natural Language Semantics Pub Date : 2019-05-18 DOI: 10.1007/s11050-019-09154-7

Nicole Gotzner

引用次数: 0

Modals under epistemic tension 认知张力下的情态动词

IF 1.1 1区文学

Natural Language Semantics Pub Date : 2019-03-27 DOI: 10.1007/s11050-019-09151-w

Guillermo Del Pinal, Brandon Waldon

{"title":"Modals under epistemic tension","authors":"Guillermo Del Pinal, Brandon Waldon","doi":"10.1007/s11050-019-09151-w","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-019-09151-w","url":null,"abstract":"According to Kratzer’s influential account of epistemic must and might, these operators involve quantification over domains of possibilities determined by a modal base and an ordering source. Recently, this account has been challenged by invoking contexts of ‘epistemic tension’: i.e., cases in which an assertion that must(phi ) is conjoined with the possibility that (lnot phi ), and cases in which speakers try to downplay a previous assertion that must(phi ), after finding out that (lnot phi ). Epistemic tensions have been invoked from two directions. Von Fintel and Gillies (Nat Lang Semant 18(4):351–383, 2010) propose a return to a simpler modal logic-inspired account: must and might still involve universal and existential quantification, but the domains of possibilities are determined solely by realistic modal bases. In contrast, Lassiter (Nat Lang Semant 24(2):117–163, 2016), following Swanson (Interactions with context. Ph.D. thesis, MIT, 2006; and in A. Eagan and B. Weatherstone, eds., Epistemic Modality, Oxford UP, 2011), proposes a more revisionary account which treats must and might as probabilistic operators. In this paper, we present a series of experiments to obtain reliable data on the degree of acceptability of various contexts of epistemic tension. Our experiments include novel variations that, we argue, are required to make progress in this debate. We show that restricted quantificational accounts à la Kratzer fit the overall pattern of results better than either of their recent competitors. In addition, our results help us identify the key components of restricted quantificational accounts, and on that basis propose some refinements and general constraints that should be satisfied by any account of the modal auxiliaries.","PeriodicalId":47108,"journal":{"name":"Natural Language Semantics","volume":"38 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2019-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138520790","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 6

Picky predicates: why believe doesn’t like interrogative complements, and other puzzles 挑剔的谓语:为什么相信不喜欢疑问句补语等难题

IF 1.1 1区文学

Natural Language Semantics Pub Date : 2019-03-18 DOI: 10.1007/s11050-019-09152-9

N. Theiler, F. Roelofsen, M. Aloni

引用次数: 18