What projects and why

Simons, Mandy; Tonhauser, Judith; Beaver, David; Roberts, Craige

doi:10.3765/salt.v20i0.2584

Cited by 255 publications

(219 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

186

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The STATUS of exhaustivity, however-that is, whether exhaustivity is at-issue or not-at-issue-may pose a potential confound to empirical research orthogonal to the semantic-pragmatic debate. At issue content, that which directly addresses the Question under Discussion (QUD) (Simons, Beaver, Tonhauser & Roberts 2010;Tonhauser, Beaver, Roberts & Simons 2013), is a critical factor that has not been properly controlled for in prior experimental work (see Section 2.2). Crucially, exhaustivity in clefts is considered to be not-at-issue; by contrast, exhaustivity in exclusives is claimed to be at-issue (see, e.g., Horn 1981;Velleman et al 2012;Büring & Križ 2013;Horn 2014;Destruel et al 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contradicting (not-)at-issueness in exclusives and clefts: An empirical study

DeVeaugh-Geiss

Zimmermann

Onea

et al. 2015

SALT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present two empirical studies on exclusives, it-clefts, and pseudoclefts (i.e., identity statements with a definite description) in which the at-issue and not-at-issue content-a factor that has not been properly controlled for in prior experimental work on cleft exhaustivity-were teased apart systematically. The results show that violations of exhaustivity in it-clefts, a not-at-issue inference, patterned differently from the necessary presupposition failures of the not-at-issue semantic inferences. These findings pose a new experimental challenge to semantic accounts of exhaustivity in it-clefts, while being in line with pragmatic accounts.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contradicting (not-)at-issueness in exclusives and clefts: An empirical study

DeVeaugh-Geiss

Zimmermann

Onea

et al. 2015

SALT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, this account does not provide a formal implementation of salience in the semantics because it involves so many factors besides recency: the discourse context, world knowledge, default assumptions, syntactic features, etc. It also seems likely that more general discourse processes partly influence which proposals can be easily targeted for denial, such as the notions of relevance to a QUD developed by Simons et al (2010) and Ginzburg (2012).…”

Section: Scott Martinmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Based on this behavior, Potts and many others have claimed that supplement content cannot be targeted by semantic operators, and that it obligatorily projects (Simons et al 2010, Tonhauser et al 2013.…”

Section: :4mentioning

confidence: 99%

Supplemental update

Martin

2017

Semantics and Pragmatics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Supplements have often been characterized as inert with respect to other content. But under closer scrutiny, the data shows that supplements can take scope and participate in anaphoric links, undermining multidimensional accounts of them. I argue that the core empirical facts pertaining to supplements, including projection, can in many cases be accounted for by more general, independently motivated factors such as anaphora resolution in discourse and quantifier scope preferences. Importantly, supplement projection is decoupled from at-issueness, with projection arising instead as an epiphenomenon of various external influences.The account is formalized in a dynamic, compositional, and unidimensional semantics that allows anaphoric links to and from supplement content. Since supplements are modeled as a kind of quantifier phrase modifier, scope interactions with semantic operators are captured without further stipulation. When a supplement takes widest scope, it constitutes a separate at-issue proposal, enabling both supplement projection and (non)deniability. The formal machinery requires no additional rules or representation layers except for the dynamic meaning of the comma intonation, which demarcates a supplement from its surrounding content.

show abstract

“…Strictly speaking, though, there are no operators in my account, as what used to be called an operator is the DP that raises from within the relative FinP to Spec of SubP (see diagram (68) for an example), and deletes by identity with the c-commanding head (see Del Gobbo 2003a andCinque 2003;2008 for similar accounts). 18 One of the reviewers pointed out to me recent work by Simons et al (2010) on projective meaning andat-issueness.Simonsetal. (2010)maintainthatprojectionisaunifiedphenomenaandthatdiverse expression types (including ARCs) project because they all share the pragmatic property of being notat-issue.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(Simons et al 2010: 325). If I were to follow Simons et al (2010), I would have to maintain that ARCs project because they are never at-issue, and the projection is the result of operators "ignoring" some of the content triggered in their scope. This alternative proposal would also account for the binding phenomena I describe in the paper, as far as we can make the reasonable assumption that the intonational break is the PF signal that at LF we are dealing with non-at-issue, or projection material.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

More appositives in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your Linguistics

Gobbo

2017

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper I lay out a proposal for a typology of appositive relative clauses. By studying the characteristics of appositive relative clauses in five languages (Mandarin Chinese, Japanese, French, Italian and English), I identify three types of appositive relative clauses: non-integrated, semi-integrated and (fully)-integrated. The empirical investigation leads to the following findings:1. Mandarin Chinese and Japanese appositive relative clauses belong to the class of fully integrated appositives; 2. English appositive relative clauses are diametrically different from the fully integrated ones.I classify them as non-integrated appositives; 3. Italian and French have two types of appositives: semi-integrated and non-integrated; 4. Reduced relative clauses can also be appositive: if pre-nominal, they are fully integrated; if post nominal, they are semi-integrated.The empirical data is accounted for by a proposal that is based on the following elements:1. the syntax of non-integrated and semi-integrated appositive relative clauses involves a CommaP projection and/or a ForceP projection; fully integrated appositives lack both of these projections; 2. the non-integrated appositives' relative pronoun is E-type; 3. the syntax of prenominal appositive relative clauses prevents them from licensing an overt relative pronoun, and therefore an E-type pronoun; 4. the CommaP triggers the intonational break at PF and, following Koev (2013) in spirit, it introduces a variable for the content of the constituents in its scope, thereby preventing such constituents from being bound from operators and quantifiers in the host clause.The empirical data analyzed and the account proposed leave us with an interesting fine-grained typology of appositives, thereby confirming a trend in the research on appositives pointing to the conclusion that we are dealing with a more variegated set of constructions than previously thought.

show abstract

What projects and why

Cited by 255 publications

References 15 publications

Contradicting (not-)at-issueness in exclusives and clefts: An empirical study

Contradicting (not-)at-issueness in exclusives and clefts: An empirical study

Supplemental update

More appositives in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your Linguistics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About