Pular para o conteúdo principal

ETHNOS_APP

Início • Busca • Periódicos • Lista 0

“Won’t you?” reverse-polarity question tags in American English as a window into the semantics-pragmatics interface

Dados Bibliográficos

ID21461963
AutoresTatjana Scheffler (0000-0001-7498-6202, Ruhr University Bochum, autor correspondente), Sophia A Malamud (0000-0002-1321-7685, Brandeis University)
Ano2023
Volume46
Fascículo6
Páginas1285-1327
Data de publicação2023-12-01
Peer ReviewedSim
Open AccessSim
TipoARTICLE
PeriódicoLinguistics and Philosophy (JOURNAL)
Identificadores do periódicoISSN: 0165-0157 • E-ISSN: 1573-0549
EditoraSpringer Science and Business Media LLC (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1007/s10988-023-09385-2
OpenAlexW4380089472
IdiomaEN
Referências citadas53

We model the conventional meaning of utterances that combine two distinct clause types: a (positive) declarative or imperative (in rare cases, interrogative) anchor and a (negative) interrogative tag, such as won’t you? . We argue that such utterances express a single speech act, and in fact, a single conventional update of the conversational scoreboard. The proposed model of this effect is a straightforward extension of prior proposals for the semantics of declaratives, imperatives, and preposed-negation interrogatives. Ours is the first unified account of these phenomena that addresses the sentential force of these utterances and outlines how the speech act effects arise from the scoreboard update and contextual factors. We enrich the conversational scoreboard, interpreted as a model of sentential force, to include graded commitments and non-at-issue meanings. A consequence of our model is that modified utterances can create “blended” speech acts which share some, but not all, properties with the unmodified utterances. The proposal has implications for models of other utterance modifiers, as well as for negative interrogatives and negation in general, and for imperative/jussive constructions

Interrogative · Interrogative word · Linguistics · Natural language processing · Negation · Pragmatics · Programming language · Speech act · Utterance · Computer Science · Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies · Linguistic Variation and Morphology · Philosophy · Psychology · Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation · Artificial Intelligence

  • The Interactive Stance

    Jonathan Ginzburg•The interactive stance•2012

  • Interpreting Imperatives

    Open Access•Magdalena Kaufmann•Interpreting Imperatives•2012

  • The Myth of Conventional Implicature

    Open Access•Kent Bach•Linguistics and Philosophy•1999

  • Syntax and semantics of questions

    Open Access•Lauri Karttunen•Linguistics and Philosophy•1977

  • On Negative Yes/No Questions

    Open Access•Maribel Romero, Chung-Hye Han et al.•Linguistics and Philosophy•2004

  • The Semantics of Imperatives within a Theory of Clause Types

    Open Access•Paul Portner•Proceedings from Semantics and…•2004

  • Assertion

    Robert C Stalnaker•Pragmatics•1978

  • A question of commitment

    Christine Gunlogson•Belgian Journal of Linguistics•2008

  • The Corpus of Contemporary American English as the first reliable monitor corpus of English

    Mark Davies•Literary and Linguistic Computing•2010

  • Bias in commitment space semantics

    Open Access•Manfred Krifka•Proceedings from Semantics and…•2015

  • The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language

    Open Access•Rodney Huddleston, Geoffrey K Pullum et al.•Cambridge Grammar of the English…•2002

  • Two-dimensional Semantics

    Tatjana Scheffler•Two-Dimensional Semantics•2013

  • Indirect Speech Acts

    John R Searle•Speech Acts•1975

  • On Reacting to Assertions and Polar Questions

    Donka F Farkas, Kim B Bruce•Journal of Semantics•2010

  • Three Ways to Avoid Commitments

    Sophia A Malamud, T Stephenson•Journal of Semantics•2015

  • Division of Labor in the Interpretation of Declaratives and Interrogatives

    Donka F Farkas, Floris Roelofsen•Journal of Semantics•2017

  • The structure of communicative acts

    Open Access•Sarah E Murray, William B Starr•Linguistics and Philosophy•2021

  • Mathematical models of dialogue 1

    Open Access•C L Hamblin•Theoria•1971

  • Attitudes in discourse

    Open Access•Ilaria Frana, Kyle Rawlins•Semantics and Pragmatics•2019

  • Reportativity, (not-) at-issueness, and assertion

    Open Access•Martina Faller•Proceedings of the Annual Meeting…•2014

  • Information structure in discourse

    Open Access•Craige Roberts•Semantics and Pragmatics•2012

  • Guiding assertions and questions in discourse

    Open Access•Mengxi Yuan, Yurie Hara•Natural Language and Linguistic…•2019

  • Deconstructing variation in pragmatic function

    Open Access•Martina Wiltschko, Derek Denis et al.•Language in Society•2018

  • Polarity particle responses as a window onto the interpretation of questions and assertions

    Open Access•Floris Roelofsen, Donka F Farkas•Language•2015

  • Notions of at-issueness

    Open Access•Todor Koev•Language and Linguistics Compass•2018

  • Modifying illocutionary force

    Open Access•J Holmes•Journal of Pragmatics•1984

  • Negative Transportation and Tag Questions

    Ray Cattell•Language•1973

  • Speech Acts

    Open Access•John R Searle•Speech acts•1969

  • Pragmatics

    Open Access•C Levinson, Stephen C Levinson•Pragmatics•1983

Velocidade de citaçãohistorical
Altamente citadoNão
Ethnos_APP • Projeto Open Source • Licença MIT • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacidade e Cookies • Documentação da API: api.ethnos.app/docs • Código da API: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Código do Frontend: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae