On Negative Yes/No Questions

Romero, Maribel; Han, Chung–hye

doi:10.1023/b:ling.0000033850.15705.94

Cited by 314 publications

(285 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

273

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…questiontypesothattherightbitsoftheCGareupdated.Onepossibilityistomaintain veryleansemanticsforthesequestionformsandderivetheirbiasesfromtheirpragmatics, using e.g., Gricean implicatures (Romero & Han 2004;Lauer 2014) or a decisiontheoreticalapproach(vanRooij&Šafárová2003).Anotherpossibilityistoenrichtheir semanticrepresentation.This,inturn,canbedonebymakingthepropositionalcontent morecomplex(usinge.g.,InquisitiveSemanticsasinFarkas&Roelofsen2014;toappear) orbyaddingalayerofsemanticcontenttoit:e.g.,aspeechactlayer(Krifkatoappear) oracontext-managementlayer(Repp2013;Romero2015).…”

Section: The Ambiguity Cell In English and Germanmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In particularly interesting (or unexpected) cases, we will alsoexaminetheprosodicrealizationofthemostfrequentlychosenform(s).Wewillnot attemptanytheoreticalmodellingatthisstage,leavingopenhowandtowhatextentthe resultingdescriptivecharacterizationofthedataintermsofbiasesshouldbereflectedin atheoreticalaccount.Thestudiesandresultstobepresentedinthispapermakeacontributioninthevastenterpriseofcharacterizingempiricallytheroleofbiasesinquestions ingeneral. Ladd(1981)andRomero&Han(2002,2004 (NPIs,e.g.,any,yet, either Ladd's (1981) and Romero & Han's (2002;2004) typology and characterization.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Bias in polar questions: Evidence from English and German production experiments

Domaneschi

Romero

Braun

2017

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Different polar question forms (e.g., Do you / Do you not / Don't you / Really? Do you... have a car?) are not equally appropriate in all situations. The present experiments investigate which combinations of original speaker belief and contextual evidence influence the choice of question type in English and German. Our results show that both kinds of bias interact: in both languages, positive polar questions are typically selected when there is no original speaker belief and positive or non-informative contextual evidence; low negation questions (Do you not...?) are most frequently chosen when no original belief meets negative contextual evidence; high negation questions (Don't you...?) are prompted when positive original speaker belief is followed by negative or non-informative contextual evidence; positive questions with really are produced most frequently when a negative original bias is combined with positive contextual evidence. In string-identical forms, there are prosodic differences across crucial conditions.

show abstract

Section: The Ambiguity Cell In English and Germanmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Bias in polar questions: Evidence from English and German production experiments

Domaneschi

Romero

Braun

2017

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, the entire headless relative ends up denoting a set containing the two polar operators {f POS , f NEG } (shortcut for {λp.p, λp.∼p}) after standard lambda abstraction over the variable has applied. Polar operators and variables over them have been independently argued for to account for scope interactions within polar interrogatives in English and other languages (Guerzoni 2004;Romero and Han 2004). The intuition that we want to capture by appealing to polar operators is that embedded declaratives and embedded polar interrogatives share a basic feature at the level of their semantic contribution: their denotations are built on the same proposition.…”

Section: Relobl-appl-3sgobl-ben-3plobl-com-1sgerg-do-past-absmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relative embeddings: a Circassian puzzle for the syntax/semantics interface

Caponigro

Polinsky

2011

Nat Lang Linguist Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper documents and analyzes the pattern used in the Northwest Caucasian language Adyghe (Circassian) to express what the following five different constructions convey in other languages: headed and headless relative clauses, embedded declaratives, embedded polar interrogatives, and embedded constituent interrogatives. We argue that Adyghe encodes the meanings of all these embedded structures by means of the same syntactic construction, a relative clause. This pervasive use of relative clauses is possible due to mechanisms that are independently attested not just in Adyghe but also in more familiar languages like English. These mechanisms include concealed questions, polarity operators, and nominals such as fact and question that can connect propositional attitude verbs or interrogative verbs with embedded clauses. We suggest that this extensive use of relative clauses in Adyghe is triggered by the absence of non-relative complementizer. We further show that this use is facilWe are very grateful to our language consultants Raxmet Eshev, Raxmet Gishev, Svetlana Kinokova, and Mira Unarokova for their help with the language data. This paper owes its initial inspiration to the pioneering findings by Yury Lander and Yakov Testelets, who have been very generous in discussing their findings with us. We are particularly indebted to Peter Arkadiev and Brian O'Herin for their very detailed comments on this work. We would also like to thank Ayla Appelbaum, Daniel Büring, Gennaro Chierchia, Marcel den Dikken, Shin Fukuda, Anastasia Giannakidou, Matt Gordon, Daniel B. Kane, Richard Kayne, Ed Keenan, Christopher Kennedy, Min-Joo Kim, Shin-Sook Kim, Alexander Letuchiy, Eric Potsdam, Greg Scontras, Kirill Shklovsky, Donca Steriade, Virginia Yip, and three anonymous reviewers for helpful suggestions. Parts of this work were presented at SALT 18, WCCFL 27, GLOW 31, CUNY Graduate Center, Zentrum für allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft in Berlin, the University of Chicago, and Yale University. We are solely responsible for all the errors in this paper.I. Caponigro ( ) Department of Linguistics, University of California San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, 0108, La Jolla, CA 92093-0108, USA e-mail: ivano@ucsd.edu M. Polinsky Department of Linguistics, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA e-mail: polinsky@fas.harvard.edu 72 I. Caponigro, M. Polinsky itated by their morphological visibility: a relativizer realized as a prefix on the verb, verbal affixation, a rich system of applicative heads hosting indirect arguments, and the availability of a case marker suffixed to headless relatives. We conclude by discussing the implications of the Adyghe system for the general design of embedding and subordination in natural language.

show abstract

“…In Bashkir they are neutral and not biased, at least not towards expecting or previously believing the answer to be positive (similar to Russian and unlike some other languages, such as English, cf. [Romero, Han 2004]) -cf. (16), (35), and (29)- (30) [Juldashev 1997: 215] and [Poppe 1964: 95-96], the use of the particle in polar questions in Bashkir is described as optional.…”

Section: Polar Questionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Untitled

2017

ALP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On Negative Yes/No Questions

Abstract: Abstract. Preposed negation yes/no (yn)-questions like

Cited by 314 publications

References 20 publications

Bias in polar questions: Evidence from English and German production experiments

Bias in polar questions: Evidence from English and German production experiments

Relative embeddings: a Circassian puzzle for the syntax/semantics interface

Untitled

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About