User Tools
2nd
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
|
2nd [2012/09/27 00:27] jingyang |
2nd [2012/12/11 14:53] (current) malte [Thematic Slot 2: Local Information Structure: Embedded foci and QUDs] |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 135: | Line 135: | ||
| === Discussion of invited talks === | === Discussion of invited talks === | ||
| - | Büring: we need a theory of deaccenting. Where you put the accent has nothing to do with discourse structure | + | Büring: we need a theory of deaccenting. Where you put the accent has nothing to do with discourse structure. e.g. |
| A: Let's have some french toast. | A: Let's have some french toast. | ||
| Line 166: | Line 166: | ||
| Roelofsen presented a joint work with Donka Farkas on assertions and polar questions. The aim is to give a unified theory for assertions and polar questions which captures the similarities and differences between them with respect to their semantics and contextual effects. Integrating the inquisitive semantics framework (Groenendijk and Roelofsen 2009; Ciardelli and Roelofsen 2011 a.o) with recent works on discourse structure (Farkas and Bruce 2010 a.o), the theory is divided into a semantic component and a discourse component which are responsible for the characterization of default cases and non-default cases, respectively. First, Roelofsen showed that the differences in context effects between assertions and polar questions result from a semantic distinction: the former express a singleton set of possibilities while the latter express a proposition consisting of two mutually exclusive possibilities. Then, an account is given for the distribution of polarity particle responses by means of the notion “highlighting” and the distinction between absolute and relative polarity features. Finally, Roelofsen showed how the non-default cases such as tag questions can be dealt with using the discourse notions “source” and “dependent” (Gunlogson 2008). | Roelofsen presented a joint work with Donka Farkas on assertions and polar questions. The aim is to give a unified theory for assertions and polar questions which captures the similarities and differences between them with respect to their semantics and contextual effects. Integrating the inquisitive semantics framework (Groenendijk and Roelofsen 2009; Ciardelli and Roelofsen 2011 a.o) with recent works on discourse structure (Farkas and Bruce 2010 a.o), the theory is divided into a semantic component and a discourse component which are responsible for the characterization of default cases and non-default cases, respectively. First, Roelofsen showed that the differences in context effects between assertions and polar questions result from a semantic distinction: the former express a singleton set of possibilities while the latter express a proposition consisting of two mutually exclusive possibilities. Then, an account is given for the distribution of polarity particle responses by means of the notion “highlighting” and the distinction between absolute and relative polarity features. Finally, Roelofsen showed how the non-default cases such as tag questions can be dealt with using the discourse notions “source” and “dependent” (Gunlogson 2008). | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | === Malte Zimmermann: Scope Marking and Discourse Structure === | ||
| + | |||
| + | In the second part of this talk presented at Konstanz University in November 2012 I explore the relation between scope marking, embedded focus accenting, and discourse structure. It is claimed that focus accents embedded in complement and conditional clauses indicate a discourse strategy (Buering 2003), which consists of a more general super-question Q', and a more specific question Q one level down which restricts the answer space of the super-question. Informativeness of Q wrt Q' is achieved not by means of the element-of relation (as in Buering's CT-constructions), but by means of the subset-relation. To give an example: | ||
| + | |||
| + | (1) Mary thinks that John kissed ANITA. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | (1) simultaneously answers Q' = What does Mary think? and the embedded local question Q = Whom did John kiss (according to Mary's beliefs). I.e. Q is not interpreted independently of Q', but forms a local question in the scope of Q'. | ||
| + | I further claim that scope marking questions are a gramamticalized way of simultaneously expressing Q' and Q within one utterance (the same can be achieved by asking two consecutive questions, as is the only option in English). The first part of the paper shows how a specific subtype of scope marking constructions in Hungarian is semantically interpreted, following the indiretc semantic accoutn of Dayal (1994, 2000). | ||
2nd.1348698425.txt.gz · Last modified: 2012/09/27 00:27 by jingyang
Page Tools
Except where otherwise noted, content on this wiki is licensed under the following license: CC Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported
