Wataru Uegaki
Datos Biográficos
| ID | 460605 |
|---|---|
| NOMBRE | Wataru Uegaki |
| NOMBRES | Wataru |
| APELLIDO | Uegaki |
| FIRMA | UEGAKI W |
| AFILIACIONES | University of Edinburgh |
| ORCID | 0000-0003-3464-9601 |
| VERIFICADO | Sí |
| TOTAL DE OBRAS | 11 |
| TOTAL DE CITAS | 4 |
| TOTAL COMO AUTOR | 11 |
| TOTAL COMO EDITOR | 0 |
| PRIMER AÑO DE PUBLICACIÓN | 2015 |
| AÑO MÁS RECIENTE DE PUBLICACIÓN | 2026 |
| ÍNDICE H | 2 |
Operationalizing focus-sensitivity in a cross-linguistic context
This paper evaluates empirical methods for detecting the focus-sensitivity of clause-embedding predicates, with the objective of making them applicable to predicates within and across languages. Our positive proposal is a test based on a combination of inferential judgments and truth-value judgments. We compare this method with three alternatives: one based on truth-value judgments alone; another based on judgments of coherence or contradiction; …
Cross-linguistic dataset of force-flavor combinations in modal elements
We present a cross-linguistic dataset of force-flavor combinations in modal elements, which currently contains information on modal semantics in 24 languages and is accessible at https://github.com/EdinburghMeaningSciences/modals_database. We discuss theoretical motivations for constructing the dataset, the data collection methodology, as well as the design and the format of the dataset. We also present four case studies using the data: (i) asses…
The Informativeness/Complexity Trade-Off in the Domain of Boolean Connectives
I apply the model of semantic universals in terms of informativeness/complexity trade-off (Kemp, Xu, and Regier 2018) to Boolean connectives. The model explains the crosslinguistic absence of the connective , once theoretical insights from Horn 1972 and Katzir and Singh 2013 are incorporated. The lack of follows if languages optimize the trade-off between (a) simplicity of the lexicon measured in terms of primitive symbols and (b) informativeness…
Question-orientedness and the Semantics of Clausal Complementation
The existential/uniqueness presupposition of wh-complements projects from the answers
The projection pattern of the existential/uniqueness presupposition of a wh -complement varies depending on the predicate that embeds it. This variation poses problems for existing accounts that treat the presupposition as a semantic contribution of an operator merging with the wh -complement (Dayal in Locality in Wh-quantification: questions and relative clauses in Hindi. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1996) or of the embedding predicate…
Composing questions by Hadas Kotek
Reviewed by: Composing questions by Hadas Kotek Wataru Uegaki Composing questions. By Hadas Kotek. (Linguistic Inquiry monograph 80.) Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2018. Pp. xii, 210. ISBN 9780262536547. $35. The immensely rich crosslinguistic empirical landscape of wh-questions has motivated many theoretical innovations in syntax/semantics throughout the history of generative linguistics. Hadas Kotek's recent book Composing questions presents th…
Distributive ignorance inferences with wonder and believe
A sentence like Mary wonders whether Ann, Bill or Carol broke the vase implies that Mary still consider all disjuncts possible. This inference has been referred to as a distributive ignorance inference (Roelofsen & Uegaki 2016). We present two experiments examining the distributive ignorance inferences triggered by two verbs, wonder and believe, with different types of complements and different types of quantificational subjects. The results of t…
The *hope-wh puzzle
Clause-embedding predicates come in three major varieties: (i)responsive predicates(e.g.know) are compatible with both declarative and interrogative complements; (ii)rogative predicates(e.g.wonder) are only compatible with interrogative complements; and (iii)anti-rogative predicates(e.g.hope) are only compatible with declarative complements. It has been suggested that these selectional properties are at least partly semantic in nature. In particu…
The semantics of question-embedding predicates
The complementation pattern of certain question-embedding predicates, such asknowandagree, presents a puzzle for the compositional semantics of clausal complementation, as the predicates seem to be able to combine with two distinct types of semantic objects: propositions and questions. The traditional approach to the semantics of these predicates, where embedded questions arereducedto propositions, faces two problems. First, it cannot account for…
Predicates of Relevance and Theories of Question Embedding
Lahiri (2002) classifies question embedding predicates into two major types, rogative and responsive predicates. Rogative predicates like wonder are only compatible with interrogative complements, while responsive predicates like know are also compatible with declarative complements. There are two main theories of responsive predicates: The question-to-proposition reduction approach holds that responsive predicates semantically always select for …
Content Nouns and the Semantics of Question-Embedding
This article proposes that responsive predicates—predicates that embed both interrogatives and declaratives, such as know—select for questions (modeled as sets of propositions) rather than propositions. Declarative complements denote singleton proposition-sets, meaning that declarative-embedding is a special (‘trivialized’) case of question-embedding. This analysis is in contrast to the more standard analysis of responsive predicates that treats …
The *hope-wh puzzle
Clause-embedding predicates come in three major varieties: (i)responsive predicates(e.g.know) are compatible with both declarative and interrogative complements; (ii)rogative predicates(e.g.wonder) are only compatible with interrogative complements; and (iii)anti-rogative predicates(e.g.hope) are only compatible with declarative complements. It has been suggested that these selectional properties are at least partly semantic in nature. In particu…
The semantics of question-embedding predicates
The complementation pattern of certain question-embedding predicates, such asknowandagree, presents a puzzle for the compositional semantics of clausal complementation, as the predicates seem to be able to combine with two distinct types of semantic objects: propositions and questions. The traditional approach to the semantics of these predicates, where embedded questions arereducedto propositions, faces two problems. First, it cannot account for…
Content Nouns and the Semantics of Question-Embedding
This article proposes that responsive predicates—predicates that embed both interrogatives and declaratives, such as know—select for questions (modeled as sets of propositions) rather than propositions. Declarative complements denote singleton proposition-sets, meaning that declarative-embedding is a special (‘trivialized’) case of question-embedding. This analysis is in contrast to the more standard analysis of responsive predicates that treats …
Predicates of Relevance and Theories of Question Embedding
Lahiri (2002) classifies question embedding predicates into two major types, rogative and responsive predicates. Rogative predicates like wonder are only compatible with interrogative complements, while responsive predicates like know are also compatible with declarative complements. There are two main theories of responsive predicates: The question-to-proposition reduction approach holds that responsive predicates semantically always select for …
Distributive ignorance inferences with wonder and believe
A sentence like Mary wonders whether Ann, Bill or Carol broke the vase implies that Mary still consider all disjuncts possible. This inference has been referred to as a distributive ignorance inference (Roelofsen & Uegaki 2016). We present two experiments examining the distributive ignorance inferences triggered by two verbs, wonder and believe, with different types of complements and different types of quantificational subjects. The results of t…
The *hope-wh puzzle
Clause-embedding predicates come in three major varieties: (i)responsive predicates(e.g.know) are compatible with both declarative and interrogative complements; (ii)rogative predicates(e.g.wonder) are only compatible with interrogative complements; and (iii)anti-rogative predicates(e.g.hope) are only compatible with declarative complements. It has been suggested that these selectional properties are at least partly semantic in nature. In particu…
The semantics of question-embedding predicates
The complementation pattern of certain question-embedding predicates, such asknowandagree, presents a puzzle for the compositional semantics of clausal complementation, as the predicates seem to be able to combine with two distinct types of semantic objects: propositions and questions. The traditional approach to the semantics of these predicates, where embedded questions arereducedto propositions, faces two problems. First, it cannot account for…
Composing questions by Hadas Kotek
Reviewed by: Composing questions by Hadas Kotek Wataru Uegaki Composing questions. By Hadas Kotek. (Linguistic Inquiry monograph 80.) Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2018. Pp. xii, 210. ISBN 9780262536547. $35. The immensely rich crosslinguistic empirical landscape of wh-questions has motivated many theoretical innovations in syntax/semantics throughout the history of generative linguistics. Hadas Kotek's recent book Composing questions presents th…
The existential/uniqueness presupposition of wh-complements projects from the answers
The projection pattern of the existential/uniqueness presupposition of a wh -complement varies depending on the predicate that embeds it. This variation poses problems for existing accounts that treat the presupposition as a semantic contribution of an operator merging with the wh -complement (Dayal in Locality in Wh-quantification: questions and relative clauses in Hindi. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1996) or of the embedding predicate…
Question-orientedness and the Semantics of Clausal Complementation
The Informativeness/Complexity Trade-Off in the Domain of Boolean Connectives
I apply the model of semantic universals in terms of informativeness/complexity trade-off (Kemp, Xu, and Regier 2018) to Boolean connectives. The model explains the crosslinguistic absence of the connective , once theoretical insights from Horn 1972 and Katzir and Singh 2013 are incorporated. The lack of follows if languages optimize the trade-off between (a) simplicity of the lexicon measured in terms of primitive symbols and (b) informativeness…
Cross-linguistic dataset of force-flavor combinations in modal elements
We present a cross-linguistic dataset of force-flavor combinations in modal elements, which currently contains information on modal semantics in 24 languages and is accessible at https://github.com/EdinburghMeaningSciences/modals_database. We discuss theoretical motivations for constructing the dataset, the data collection methodology, as well as the design and the format of the dataset. We also present four case studies using the data: (i) asses…
Operationalizing focus-sensitivity in a cross-linguistic context
This paper evaluates empirical methods for detecting the focus-sensitivity of clause-embedding predicates, with the objective of making them applicable to predicates within and across languages. Our positive proposal is a test based on a combination of inferential judgments and truth-value judgments. We compare this method with three alternatives: one based on truth-value judgments alone; another based on judgments of coherence or contradiction; …
Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation (10 obras) · Computer Science (9 obras) · Philosophy (9 obras) · Linguistics (8 obras) · Epistemology (6 obras) · Programming language (5 obras) · Mathematics (4 obras) · Proposition (4 obras) · Artificial Intelligence (3 obras) · Artificial Intelligence (3 obras)