表达式和参数扩展

Nicolás Lo Guercio, Eleonora Orlando
{"title":"表达式和参数扩展","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

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。
Expressives and argument extension
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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