{"title":"关于相信和希望","authors":"Aaron Steven White","doi":"10.3765/SP.14.6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Theories of clause selection that aim to explain the distribution of interrogative and declarative complement clauses often take as a starting point that predicates like think , believe , hope , and fear are incompatible with interrogative complements. After discussing experimental evidence against the generalizations on which these theories rest, I give corpus evidence that even the core data are faulty: think , believe , hope , and fear are in fact compatible with interrogative complements, suggesting that any theory predicting that they should not be must be jettisoned. \n \nEARLY ACCESS","PeriodicalId":45550,"journal":{"name":"Semantics & Pragmatics","volume":"14 1","pages":"6"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On believing and hoping whether\",\"authors\":\"Aaron Steven White\",\"doi\":\"10.3765/SP.14.6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Theories of clause selection that aim to explain the distribution of interrogative and declarative complement clauses often take as a starting point that predicates like think , believe , hope , and fear are incompatible with interrogative complements. After discussing experimental evidence against the generalizations on which these theories rest, I give corpus evidence that even the core data are faulty: think , believe , hope , and fear are in fact compatible with interrogative complements, suggesting that any theory predicting that they should not be must be jettisoned. \\n \\nEARLY ACCESS\",\"PeriodicalId\":45550,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Semantics & Pragmatics\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"6\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Semantics & Pragmatics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3765/SP.14.6\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Semantics & Pragmatics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3765/SP.14.6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Theories of clause selection that aim to explain the distribution of interrogative and declarative complement clauses often take as a starting point that predicates like think , believe , hope , and fear are incompatible with interrogative complements. After discussing experimental evidence against the generalizations on which these theories rest, I give corpus evidence that even the core data are faulty: think , believe , hope , and fear are in fact compatible with interrogative complements, suggesting that any theory predicting that they should not be must be jettisoned.
EARLY ACCESS