& Volume 10, Article 19, 2017 https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.10.19

This is an early access version of

Claus, Berry, A. Marlijn Meijer, Sophie Repp & Manfred Krifka. 2017. Puzzling response particles: An experimental study on the German answering system. Semantics and Pragmatics 10(19). https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.10. 19.

This version will be replaced with the final typeset version in due course. Note that page numbers will change, so cite with caution.

©2017 Berry Claus, A. Marlijn Meijer, Sophie Repp, and Manfred Krifka This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/). early access

Puzzling response particles: An experimental study on the German answering system*

Berry Claus A. Marlijn Meijer Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin Universität zu Köln Sophie Repp Manfred Krifka Universität zu Köln Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin

Abstract This paper addresses the use and interpretation of the German re- sponse particles ja, nein, and doch. In four experiments, we collected acceptability- judgement data for the full paradigm of standard German particles in responses to positive and negative assertions. The experiments were designed to test the empirical validity of two recent accounts of response particles, Roelofsen & Farkas(2015) and Krifka(2013), which view response particles as propositional anaphors. The results for responses to negative antecedents were unpredicted and inconsistent with either account. A further unexpected finding was that there was large interindividual variation in the acceptability patterns for affirming responses to negative antecedents to the extent that most speakers found ja more acceptable whereas some found nein more acceptable. We discuss possible revisions of the two accounts to model the findings, and explore in how far the findings can be accounted for in alternative, ellipsis accounts of response particles.

Keywords: response particles, polarity, , propositional anaphors, ellipsis

1 Introduction

Response particles such as English yes and no are a short and frequent means of answering polar and of affirming or rejecting assertions. Yet response particles are puzzling. English yes and no responses are unambiguous with positive antecedents1, for example, assertions as in (1).A yes response affirms and a no response rejects a positive antecedent.

* Part of the present work was presented at the 19th SemDial, the 20th Amsterdam Colloquium, and the 38th Annual Conference of the German Linguistic Society (DGfS). Experiment 2 and 3 of the present paper were reported in Meijer, Claus, Repp & Krifka 2015. We thank Elisa Stein and Katharina Vnoucek for their assistance in collecting the data. This research is supported by DFG in the priority program XPrag.de (SPP 1727). 1 We are using the term antecedent in the of antecedent to an anaphoric expression. The antecedent is a that is introduced by the assertion or that the response particle responds to. early access 2 n hr a lob oevrainbe- variation some be also may there and 2012) Rawlins & Kramer 2015, Wagner epnepril inl ihrtetuho h ast fteatcdn.This antecedent. the of falsity the or truth the either signals particle response A h ae drse h cetblt fteGra epneprilsi in particles response German German. the in of particles acceptability response the of addresses use paper and The meaning the investigates article present The o negative For smokes. Bill A: (1) hogotti ae,w r sn h term the using are we paper, this Throughout like responses not elliptical as are particles anaphor accounts response view and different approaches approaches that ellipsis ellipsis the so types: of patterns major Proponents two data approaches. into of fall range accounts full Recent for. the called it explain However, to 2015). able cross- Holmberg current not (e.g., for is particles basis response the form of investigations to antecedent. continues linguistic and the appealing of intuitively validity is distinction the clause. is response dimension the decisive of response the polarity a negative systems, is, the response That truth-based or clause. of In positive response choice the the either the of signals polarity systems, particle the polarity-based by In determined is 1973 ). particles Kuno 1999 , Jones cf. systems, answering major two implica- theoretical the findings. discusses the and investigation, of experimental tions by (2) and (1) like smoke. doesn’t Bill A: (2) with antecedent negative a some to example, response For affirming yes 2012). an Rawlins accept & strongly may (Kramer speakers English of & speakers Goodhue native 2013, tween Roelofsen & Farkas in (Brasoveanu, responses acceptability the their However, in 2011). 2013, differ Rawlins Wagner & & Pickett Kramer responses Goodhue, rejecting 2015, 2000, in Holmberg Sag and & affirming (Ginzburg in antecedents used negative to be can particles response Both mentary. 2015). (Holmberg it accept all at not may others while (2B-ii), in as , oeta eaeol icsigsadr epneprilslike particles response standard discussing only are we that Note between made be can distinction a cross-linguistically that proposed (1976) Pope Ys edoes. he Yes, (i) B: Ys eDOES. he Yes, (i) B: 2 N,h doesn’t. he No, (iv) does. he #No, (iii) doesn’t. he #Yes, (ii) N,h doesn’t. he No, DOES. (iv) he No, doesn’t. he (iii) Yes, (ii) (2), in assertion the as such antecedents, yeah , yup , uh-huh or , oaiybsdsystems polarity-based right negative . 2 ntersrce es fpooiinlnegation. propositional of sense restricted the in and yes rt-ae systems truth-based lu,Mie,Rp Krifka & Repp Meijer, Claus, yes and and no no r o comple- not are nti ae,and paper, this in (2B) (also may early access 3 . The doch rejects it. For is clear-cut. A is a specialized is restricted to rather nein nein , respectively. With Doch doch no and ja and yes , it includes the particle doch nein are not complementary. Both can be used , and 3 and nein ja nein , ja and ja roughly correspond to English affirms a positive antecedent and a response with nein ja (ii) Nein.(iii) (=#Doch. He doesn’t.) (ii) Nein.(iii) (= He doesn’t.) Doch. (= He does.) and ja B: (i) Ja. (= He does.) B: (i) Ja. (= He doesn’t.) The paper is structured as follows. Section2 provides a detailed description The particle can marginally besponding used negative as proposition a can response be tospecial accommodated. positive contexts antecedents However, this see (Helbig use Karagjosova 1988), of 2006 iffor a discussion. corre- (4)A: Bill raucht nicht. (‘Bill doesn’t smoke.’) response with negative antecedents, as in (4), to affirm a negative antecedent (seeparticle e.g., which Blühdorn is2012: typically 386). used for rejecting responses to(3)A: negative antecedents. Bill raucht. (‘Bill smokes.’) system with three particles. Besides particles positive antecedents, as in (3), the use and interpretation of investigation of acceptability patterns for Germancusses response the particles. experimental Section4 findingsdis- withand respect explores to possible all alterations accounts to discussedpaper. the in existing2 Section accounts. Section5 concludes the 2 German response particles: of the German response particleproaches system, proposed a by detailedRoelofsen explication &a of(2015) Farkas description and the of by anaphor the(2013),Krifka ap- ellipsis as accounts well by as Kramer &(2011) Rawlins pirical and Holmberg validity of the two anaphor approaches and to provide the first systematic argue that response particles are propositional anaphors (Krifka , 2013 system,Roelofsen which is the topic of the present investigation. Puzzling response particles constructions where a full responseantecedent, clause and is the elided response under particle syntactic is identity the with remnant the in the ellipsis clause (Kramer The German response particle system differs from the English one in that it is a (2015). Section3 reports four experiments that were designed to evaluate the em- & Rawlins 2011, Holmberg 2013, 2015). Proponents of& the Farkas anaphor2015). approaches The anaphor approaches explicitly address the German response 3 early access 4 ihoetp aslt oaiyfaue)ecdn hte h epnecas has clause response the whether encoding features) polarity (absolute type one with ihrgr ofaueseicsmni aus ftepeaetstse h pre- the satisfies prejacent the If values. semantic feature-specific to regard with to regard with antecedent the reverses or with agrees clause response the whether i aepril epne) h etrsips rspoiin nteprejacent the on impose features The responses). bare-particle (in is (2015) Farkas & Roelofsen by proposed model feature syntactic-semantic The asm htthe that assume Farkas & Roelofsen Concretely, particles. response of account versal atce saahrcepesoswihrqietepeec fasletproposition salient a of presence the require which expressions anaphoric as particles doch negation without antecedents widest- smoke with (e.g., antecedents don’t negation to scope friends restricted narrow be with to antecedents appears For (4) negation. in pattern the that Note ees fteptenta a on o neeet ihsneta eain(e.g., negation antecedents. Congo sentential positive the with to antecedents for go found didn’t was representatives that pattern the of (e.g., reverse negation English the housing for of free holds reading for analogous scope up the narrow that a suggest with 2013 antecedents al. For et Brasoveanu [ in and reported Findings “[+] [ prejacent: and the ([+] of features polarity polarity the absolute on The particle features. the given polarity to the the passed insert realizes is rules that value insertion semantic morphological and corresponding node the polarity-phrase feature, given a of supposition the argument, clausal a takes head polarity. and encoding content features) polarity (relative type other the and polarity negative or features, positive of types two on depends cross-linguistically particles response uni- of a choice as intended is It systems. distinction answering the truth-based & on and Farkas builds polarity-based on and between draws model model The commitment-based antecedents. (2010) polar frameworkBruce’s of fine-grained types a different provides distinguish which semantics, to inquisitive of terms in framed German for assumptions its and model feature The 2.1 term the use will account we saliency instantly, salience clear of become role will the model to that respect salient reasons with this For and role process the itself. anaphoric to the respect in with differ plays approaches proposition The . discourse the in nlz h emnresponse German the analyze (2013) Krifka and ( 2015) Farkas & Roelofsen h polarity The . (5) see phrase, polarity a of head the by hosted are features The sntlicit. not is n h term the and ( 2015) Farkas & Roelofsen by proposed model the to refer to ), yes model. (2013) Krifka’s to refer to a on ob rfre over preferred be to found was ,teueo epneprilscrepnst hi s for use their to corresponds particles response of use the ), 4 ,ta is, that ), (3) in (as n orsod oteueof use the to corresponds and ) prejacent 4 hc a eprilyo ul elided fully or partially be may which , no ja nafimn epne.Ti atr sthe is pattern This responses. affirming in and tms i outesddntsign not did volunteers six most At nein lu,Mie,Rp Krifka & Repp Meijer, Claus, − r opeetr and complementary are rspoeta their that presuppose ] yes xcl oro Bill’s of four Exactly and no h government The nrsossto responses in − )ips a impose ]) yes feature and no . early access , , β John is coming , which is high- 5 . agrees with/reverses ] “presuppose that their α The relative polarity features doch nein 6 nein ja REVERSE John is coming , and such that or ] β ja nein , and that the discourse context contains ] and [ expresses the two possibilities { ] , α 5 ja , +] REVERSE is adopted from Roelofsen & van Gool 2010 . AGREE AGREE , that is, the licit connections between features and ] or [ − REVERSE Is John coming? ] can only be realized by − Bill smokes ]) pose a presupposition on the semantic relation between ] can be realized by , TP=prejacent highlighted − , , +] can only be realized by PolP ] realizes [ can realize [ comes from inquisitive semantics, where sentences suggest possible updates of can realize [+] or [ } and highlights the positive possibility REVERSE AGREE REVERSE AGREE [ [ nein [ doch ja FEATURE [ ] and [ possibility feature-realization potentials AGREE The term the common ground. A sentenceis expresses a a set proposition, of which indices is andsingle a represents possibilities, a set polar possible of questions update possibilities. express of AFor two the possibility instance, possibilities. common ground. the Simple polar declaratives question express the response particle assignments in (7). (7) Feature combinations and particles in German response particles, are assumed to Farkas bepropose -specific. the For realization German, potentialsRoelofsen in & (6). (6) Feature realization potential of prejacent highlights a unique possibility a unique most salient antecedentboth possibility in terms of content and in terms of polarity” (Roelofsen(5) & Farkas 2015: 385). 2015: 385). The term come available for subsequent anaphoric . the prejacent and the antecedent: [ Puzzling response particles prejacent expresses a proposition containinglighted a and single has possibility positive or negative polarity, respectively” (Roelofsen & Farkas The ([ A highlighted possibility is one that is particularly salient and therefore may be- John is not coming With regard to the four possible feature combinations, Roelofsen & Farkas assume 5 6 early access 7 epan h h s of use the why explains (7) in proposal The Reosn&Farkas & Roelofsen features, absolute between the For preference considerations. in markedness of a basis ([ implies antecedents model negative feature to responses the affirming in used be can ([ antecedents positive to nte feto h akdescnieain stegnrto ftplgclpeitos see predictions; discussion. typological detailed of a generation for the 2015 Farkas is & considerations Roelofsen markedness the of effect Another assumptions: main four with comes interpre- It the particles. to response approach of optimality-theoretic tation an is German account for saliency assumptions (2013) Krifka’s its and account saliency The avoid2.2 to pressure the example, 2015). for allows Farkas general factors, & in Roelofsen additional (cf. model other, the of that influence preference note the the but for for particles account response to German model for feature the patterns in crucial are mechanism blocking blocks [ therefore combination and particle combination, the feature that this for assume Farkas & Roelofsen play. [ because derived. ([ less be antecedents than can particles need preference response for realization the predictions of higher considerations, patterns a markedness these have From features features. Furthermore, marked marked relation. more identity the that than assume complex they more is relation complement the the [ For that polarity. positive assume they with features, expressions relative than marked more are polarity negative [ that propose AGREE Terltv ainyo h rpR scontext-dependent. is propDRs the of saliency relative The 4. saliency. in differ propDRs two These 3. 2. 1. eaieatcdnsitouetopoDs nhrdt rpsto and proposition a negation. to its anchored propDRs, two introduce antecedents Negative propositional a up (henceforth pick referent that discourse anaphors propositional are particles Response .Frrjcigrsoss([ responses rejecting For ]. nein elzstemre etr [ feature marked the realizes [ − REVERSE AGREE REVERSE smr akdta +,o h supinta xrsin with expressions that assumption the on [+], than marked more is ] , − ]cnol eraie by realized be only can +] , ) h etr oe rdcsapeeec for preference a predicts model feature the ]), ]cnol eraie by realized be only can +] , AGREE ]ad[ and +] , REVERSE REVERSE propDR − 6 ja whereas ] REVERSE smr akdta [ than marked more is ] and ],a diinlfco oe into comes factor additional an +]), , ,itoue yteantecedent. the by introduced ), 7 nein o frigrsosst negative to responses affirming For nein doch ja , doch doch scmlmnayi responses in complementary is − elzsteumre feature unmarked the realizes )adwyboth why and ]) ohmrens n the and markedness Both . and lu,Mie,Rp Krifka & Repp Meijer, Claus, steddctdparticle dedicated the is AGREE ja hti,tefeature the is, that , ja AGREE and , − ) However, ]). nein nein ja because ] and over nthe on nein ja early access nein is by DR p , and and asserts it, DR ¯ Type p )), including the DR with positive and p DR p ( comes with the presup- doch picks up (smoke(Bill)) doch ¬ , and (smoke(Bill)) affirmation (smoke(Bill)) rejection (smoke(Bill)) affirmation ¬ ¬ ¬ = K doch nein , is the positive proposition in the , Krifka proposes that , e.g, e.g, smoke(Bill)e.g, affirmation e.g, e.g, smoke(Bill) rejection e.g, smoke(Bill) rejection ]]] DR ja DR p p can both be picked up by (cf. DR DR DR DR DR DR ¯ ¯ p p p p p p picking up and asserting ¬ Meaning¬ Response ¬ smoke DR . The particle 7 and ja p as asserting the propDR it picks up whereas , is the negated proposition established by the (smoke(Bill)) in the context of a salient negative antecedent. Bill DR t ¬ ¯ doch p and ja DR DR DR ¯ p p p DR DR DR DR DR DR DR ¯ [ are salient and that ¯ ¯ p Mary would have known that p p p propDR , and based on the reasoning that negative antecedents are DR DR p nein ) vs. ¯ p , doesn’t ja DR and ¯ p Particle Targeted janein p ja p nein doch p ( Bill t in picking up DR ) ¯ p ja DR and asserting its negation. ¯ p [ , i.e., negative propDR: , i.e., positive propDR: smoke(Bill) DR negative antecedents. Targeted propDR and meaning of with positive antecedents and a non-complementary use in affirming p Bill DR DR [ ¯ p p J ) Bill smokes Bill doesn’t nein asserts the negation of the targeted propDR. This holds for positive and for Mary knows that and smoke Positive antecedents Negative antecedents (e.g., (e.g., He further assumes that the relative saliencies are reversed in negative contexts, Regarding the relative saliencydefault of more salient than usually uttered in contexts in which the non-negated proposition is salient already. picking up propositional anaphora position that both thereby blocking ja responses to negative antecedents, with antecedent. The positive propDR, henceforth scope of the negation operator. ... negative antecedents. As already mentioned, thepropDRs, latter as are illustrated assumed in to(8): introduce two (8) Puzzling response particles More specifically, Krifka analyses nein This proposal, which is summarized in1, Table results in a complementary use of The negative propDR, henceforth Table 1 early access hc ik ptemr salient more the up picks which osdrafimn epne ongtv neeet (e.g., antecedents negative to responses affirming consider for patterns preference the affect to Therefore, and assumed 1993). are less Zacharski saliencies than & relative anaphors Hedberg proposed by Gundel, the up 1990, salient picked Ariel more readily (e.g., Since more referents (9). are salient they see accessible antecedent, more the are preceding referents question negative a as such om n enn.Ti loshnln lcigpeoea ieteobservation the like phenomena, blocking handling allows of pairings This evaluates meaning. underlying which and the 2011), Crucially, forms Mattausch constraints. & (Benz ranked OT of bidirectional set is a framework by captured anaphora be concerning can observations resolution well-known In expressions. how anaphoric shows 2004), of 2004 () Zeevat interpretation Beaver the & particular, topic, Blutner current (cf. to the employed pragmatics for relevant been in most has rules and, these OT competing evaluate forms. of of optimal interaction that generation the the constraints identifies model the that modular in algorithm of an consists and hierarchy theory forms, a OT forms, an possible linguistic of different other architecture to extended classical later The and phonology, levels. in phenomena explain to developed dispreference. context-independent, over preferred be should Here contexts. negative for predicted ja negation, its asserts and antecedents, negative to responses rejecting In nicht? raucht Freunden deinen von Wer A: (9) question for negative preference a where (9), antecedent, in the reversed: precedes be should pattern this contexts, negative default), (the contexts than neutral salient In more context. of the saliencies on relative depend the should on depend should particles up case, this btnot (but p ¯ oilsrt h rdcin eial rmteslec con,ltu first us let account, saliency the from derivable predictions the illustrate To cssti nlssi notmlt-hoei rmwr.O a originally was OT framework. optimality-theoretic an in analysis this casts Krifka nein DR ( . ¬ Ja/Nein/Doch. C: nicht. raucht Bill B: nein (smoke(Bill)) nein Bl os’ smoke.’ doesn’t ‘Bill smoke?’ doesn’t friends your of ‘Which ik up picks ja sbokdby blocked is ) hc ik p¯ up picks which , p ¯ DR n set t h rfrnefrete ftetoresponse two the of either for preference The it. asserts and ) eutn napeeec for preference a in resulting , p doch DR doch p ¯ DR ( smoke(Bill) sasmdt emr ain than salient more be to assumed is sfor As . ik up picks doch p p DR DR npcigup picking in hudb rfre over preferred be should . ja nein hr hudb togadgnrl viz., general, and strong a be should there , p n set t eain whereas negation, its asserts and ) 8 DR hc ik ptemr salient more the up picks which , (e.g., nein ik up picks smoke(Bill) p DR nein p ¯ DR nnurlcontexts, neutral In . hc ik up picks which , lu,Mie,Rp Krifka & Repp Meijer, Claus, p ¯ and DR ildentsmoke doesn’t Bill p ,adasrsi,and it, asserts and ), (e.g., nein DR p p DR DR sasmdt be to assumed is h ees is reverse The . hc nturn in which , ¬ eutn na in resulting , (smoke(Bill)) ja p DR picks doch .In ). p ¯ In . DR ja , , ) early access 9 > DR ¯ p is the RES carries P ja , on the use doch DR as anaphoric ¯ p is more salient. LOCK in this case is an doch , which also picks DR B ¯ p ja ja has the effect that the and (Heim 1991): nein for affirming responses, and LOCK , B ja nein . The blocking of DR 9 p for rejecting responses. ] suppresses the use of , which disfavours negative discourse referents. It is DR DR p nein is violated if there is a presupposition failure. . However, we think the notation without asterisk is more / EG are present, the constraint penalizes picking up comprises the presupposition that the particle picks N RES Maximize Presupposition RES P doch DR P p is relevant for anaphora in general. It ensures that there doch : Penalizes picking up a less salient discourse referent doesn’t. The OT tableau in2 Table with the ranking and AL shows the resulting evaluations both in the default case when S AL : Meta-constraint; penalizes using non-optimal form/meaning ja DR S : Penalizes the violation of presuppositions ¯ p ON AL , the optimal response particle is is a meta-constraint by which optimal form-meaning pairs suppress ON S N LOCK DR RES p B pairs ON The constraint N LOCK 8 is the generalization of * B c. P b. > * to express the same meaning, . when both AL for rejecting responses to negative antecedents. With a salient S DR is assumed to be more salient, and the special case when DR The relevant constraints for the interpretation of p p doch ON LOCK DR N p B orientation. * proposed in Krifka 2013 asKrifka(2013) the calls final the analysis. constraint * intuitive: the violation occurs ifIn a presupposition the is OT not tableaux fulfilled. and some of the other tables, we use grey shading for rejections to facilitate optimal particle for affirming, and Let us sum upmodel and (Roelofsen compare & Farkas the2015) predictions does not of predict the any context two effects. approaches. For The affirming feature a presupposition that doch 2.3 Summary of the predictions of the feature model and saliency account to express a different meaning (cf. of Beaver stressed 2004 pronounson in the English). effectoptimal In of form-meaning the pair case [ at hand, up instance of the pragmatic rule, asterisk means that a candidatepicked violates up. the constraint ifSince a the lexical non-salient entry referent of is up by the expression of the same meaning by a different form, or the use of the same form is a preference for picking up the most salient antecedent. The notation with the expressions that pick up propDRs are given in . (10) (10) *Na. Puzzling response particles that simple anaphors, like pronouns,more prefer complex salient forms, discourse like stressed referents, pronouns which or leaves full DPs, to select less salient referents The constraint * (cf. Ariel 1990). With a salient 8 9 10 early access ae h rdcinta h rfrne o epneprilsshould particles response for preferences the that prediction the makes 2013) (Krifka 2 Table otxsta ndfutcnet eas ntefre h rpRthat propDR the former the in because contexts B default ranked in highly than the contexts to between due difference response preference rejecting The a constraint. as dispreferred strongly be to for for preference preference a a contexts be should there for contexts, preference default a be should preference there a contexts, responses, affirming For context. discourse for wider the to sensitive account saliency be The preference. in differ not and dispreferred for strongly preference be strong a should be should there for responses, preference rejecting For general a antecedents, negative to responses nein doch nein ja doch nein ja Particle over ( ntesm oortemaigepesdb h atcei h same the is particle the by expressed meaning the colour same the in for tableau OT p ja DR Targeted propDR p p p p p p p p p p p p ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ speitdi eal,vz,pstv,cnet,weesi negative in whereas contexts, positive, viz., default, in predicted is DR DR DR DR DR DR DR DR DR DR DR DR / ¬ p ¯ DR o eetos ¯ rejections; for nein ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ p p p p p p p p p p p p ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ja DR DR DR DR DR DR DR DR DR DR DR DR ain rpR= propDR Salient = propDR Salient over enn P Meaning , nein rejecting = rejecting = rejecting = rejecting = frig* rejecting = rejecting = affirming = affirming = frig* affirming = * affirming = * * affirming = affirming = doch and , p speitd nbt contexts, both In predicted. is DR 10 doch / ja ¬ nein p over DR RES ihngtv neeet.Frrows For antecedents. negative with p p ¯ doch o affirmations). for and DR DR nein B ja LOCK over o eetn epne in responses rejecting For . * * hudb agri negative in larger be should lu,Mie,Rp Krifka & Repp Meijer, Claus, nein nein doch *N over hl o negative for while , ON both ; * * * 10 S ja ja AL nein spredicted. is spredicted is ja     ik up, picks and LOCK nein early access 11 ja = nein ja > > doch nein ja ja > > nein doch ja > > > nein > Predicted preference patterns Saliency account Feature model doch nein nein ja 11 Positive (default) Negative Positive (default) Negative Comparison of the predictions ofmodel the for saliency negative account antecedents. vs. the feature Affirming Response type Context Rejecting , is the most salient propDR whereas in the latter it is not.3 Table juxtaposes the DR ¯ p Kramer &’s Rawlins proposal is concernedresponse with to response questions. particles We that will are extend uttered their in analysisKrifka(2013) to and assertion-responseRoelofsen discourses &shortcomings(2015) Farkas that also do discuss not the specificallyexposition ellipsis here concern accounts. to the a They German mere highlight answer description. system. See Section4 Wefor are a restricting critical our evaluation. in the sections to come —investigations. these In observations the could general not be discussion, verified weaccounts by will and our offer examine quantitative an how evaluation they of might the be ellipsis adapted to account for our results. nevertheless describe these accountsGerman here – and on propose theEnglish. plausible basis We will adaptations of not take to the intoRoelofsen empirical consideration & the observations(2015) Farkas empirical and that observationsKrifka(2013) offered the for by German authors because make — as for we will see 2.4.1 Kramer & Rawlins (2011) In the introductory section, webare pointed out particle that answers there as are instancesgeneral accounts of syntactic which ellipsis. licensing consider conditions Particle for answersthe ellipsis. are response The thus particles elided subject occur constituent to above isEnglish the the by TP. TP, EllipsisKramer accounts & have(2011) Rawlins been and proposed for for a variety of by Holmberg 2.4 The ellipsis approaches Puzzling response particles predictions of the feature model and the saliency account for negative antecedents. (2013, 2015). Neither of these accounts considers German in any detail. We will Table 3 11 14 13 12 early access .It (2001). Merchant by ellipsis of licensing the in essential be to proposed was (u Padrqie httecnetpoie natcdn o h Pwihentails which TP the for antecedent an provides context the that requires and TP hs a cu ntenegativeThe the on occur may These eas hymyrglryocrblwconditional below occur regularly may they because Σ phrase (1990) polarity Laka a by ∅ is work there earlier that on builds assumes antecedents, proposal and some as The for questions 2015). 2.4.2 and Holmberg Section assertions by see of provided (but conflation so do a to against not arguments reason empirical principled no is there because here saplrt atce(.. ytkn oiiepooiina ruetadrtrigangtdone). negated a returning and argument as proposition positive a taking by Rather, (e.g., particle polarity a as c-commanded to that adjoining assumption adverbials assumption. The assumption. are this (2013) particles for Krifka ’s response arguments with German no stick that provide and suggest stance (2012) conservative Rawlins a & on Kramer take will We frequent. more are that argues (2011) Textor the condition: identity In semantic the negative. with is conforms antecedent which interpretable, is TP the in responses The uses 2011. antecedents negative Rawlins interrogative & with Kramer iden- dialogues in semantic on the modelled violate are not that does antecedents this that provided Examples clause condition. the tity in lowest is that one u u polarity-related particle feature, of The polarity presence clause. negative the the uninterpretable in of an features consequence syntactic a uninterpretable be and to interpretable TP elided the of negation meaning a be must there antecedent, negative a TP. a to elided when response the a condition: in the as identity particles, used semantic is response a particle of to taken bare down case are boils the constituents condition In focussed entailment 1999). once mutual (Schwarzschild TP, F-closure the by of the of complement. of care the a spellout by PF as entailed the elided is prevents and be [E]-feature The to TP. is the is that this constituent case, the present the taking In head the on occurs ( possible not is English in N .FrGra,w ilasm httersos particles response the that assume will we German, For P. or , N EG tk h nepa ftecoc frsos atce n the and particles response of choice the of interplay the take Rawlins & Kramer A EG N no not EG Σ no u xcl n fte utb nepeal.Teitrrtbefauei the is feature interpretable The interpretable. be must them of one exactly but ) etr on feature , ha a oewt rwtota E-etr,wihi etr that feature a is which [E]-feature, an without or with come may -head (11C) niae htteei eainlwri h clause. the in lower negation a is there that indicates or etrson features so N EG sin as , uses faue niae httedntto of denotation the that indicates -features no no lashsan has always yes om hi with chain a forms fnot if fyes if Σ In . n nNgmyb nepeal (i interpretable be may Neg on and (11A) , / i yes *if fno if so (11C) (11B) and oocri nls u it htGerman that hints but English in occur do - un (11C) , ete h particle, the neither , the , Σ ab not maybe i no *if interpretable edado h ePha fcaslnegation. clausal of head NegP the on and head N r w ilge ihdcaaienegative declarative with dialogues two are N 2013). (Krifka ) 12 EG EG Σ etr nteha fteNg inside NegP the of head the on feature / bv h P nEnglish, In TP. the above P so N etrsfrhrdw nteclause. the in down further features N (11B) EG EG h particles The . etr hc nesacanwt other, with chain a enters which feature ; no yes if - osntdrcl eetisfunction its reflect directly not does (11C) ( a oplrt etr.The feature. polarity no has enja wenn yes 12 , lu,Mie,Rp Krifka & Repp Meijer, Claus, 13 N o h (nonnegative) the nor , ja r affirmations; are EG and yes , runinterpretable or ) ennein wenn nein and enja wenn no are , Σ donto adjoin ennein wenn ,which ), Σ a be may no heads (11B) Σ but P has 14 early access - EG EG no N N head in Σ -response is that [is coming to the [is coming to the -response, there is yes feature. So we will ] ] ja EG EG EG iN feature on the uN [ [ N . We follow Repp(2009) Neg yes Neg NEG [is coming to the party]]]]] ] Bill raucht]]]] feature higher up in the structure NegP EG , the NegP feature. In the vP -response, the response particle has [ iN EG ] [ EG he [ N he [ EG heads. Kramer & Rawlins assume that Bill raucht]]]] nein N (11B) iN Neg Σ TP TP [ vP [ [ 13 [ ] ] ] E E , Neg , NegP EG EG EG vP iN [ [ he [ iN uN [ [ Σ Σ TP TP -response in [ Neg [ feature. In the P P ] head, as we mentioned above. Σ Σ no E vP [ [ , [E] [ EG Σ ] ] Σ EG N TP EG EG P -responses to a negative antecedent. In both responses, the [ uN Σ [ ] uN uN ja [ [ E [ no no ja nein yes [ that it may come with an interpretable or an uninterpretable P P P P P - and Σ Σ Σ Σ Σ [ [ [ party]]]]] [ party]]]]] [ feature in the ellipsis site to be interpretable. Recall that the identity are probably best analysed as nein has no polarity feature, just like English nein B’: Ja. (= ‘Bill does not smoke.’) B: Nein. (= ‘Bill does not smoke.’) B: No. (= He is not coming to the party.) C: Yes. (= He is not coming to the party.) B: No. (= He is not coming to the party.) EG Ja feature and forms a chain with the i nein N is interpretable because the semantic identity condition does not allow the P adjunct. In addition, we will assume that this adjunct may have a u P), viz., in responses with response particles. (13) illustrates the syntax of EG ν Applying this system to German, we must make a few adjustments because the Σ N and heads may have an interpretable or an uninterpretable -head have polarity features. The structure and meaning of the (13)A: Bill raucht nicht. (‘Bill does not smoke.’) no polarity feature on the feature provided it can enter a chain with an i affirming clausal negation has an i a u Σ assume for feature. in the assumption thatas clausal a negation in German is not realized in a NegP but syntax of negation differs inja English and German. We suggested above that German lower condition is a semantic one, notnegation a in syntactic the one, elided so TP the does presence not of violate an the(12)A: uninterpretable identity condition. Alfonso is coming to the party. Next consider (12), a dialogueresponse. In where a to positive the antecedent is rejected with a (11)A: Alfonso is not coming to the party. Puzzling response particles Σ of the antecedent clause and thus also conforms with the semantic identity condition. (in (12B) early access htw aesece eei naayi o aastain where situation, data a for analysis an is here sketched have we What suefrEnglish for assume (2011) Rawlins & Kramer what ihqeto-epnedsore eas h ai ytci ehns proposed mechanism account syntactic Holmberg’s basic of the discussion because our discourses start question-response will with we here, assertions to responses with ontpoieawre-u con o ae hr eaieantecedent negative a where cases for account worked-out a provide not do (2011) h ytci mlmnainmksueo nitrrtbervrigfaue i feature, reversing interpretable an of use makes implementation syntactic The Bl act ‘ilsmokes.’) (‘Bill raucht. Bill A: the (14) of because negation interpretable an contain condition. not identity must semantic TP (14), elided see the antecedent, positive since a feature to response rejecting a In ,tePlha nesthe [ enters feature head polarity Pol unvalued the an (2015), Holmberg with to derivation = According (Pol 2007). head 2001, sentences whose Holmberg all that phrase assumes polarity 2015 ) a quite (2013, contain are Holmberg Rawlins ’s. They & predecessors). Kramer and to ( 2013; similar Holmberg in developed analyses on build that it highlight Furthermore, to discourses. important assertion-response is in operative become also may these for concerned are we Although assertions. vs. syntax questions different negation. to a responses the have in for may semantics positions particles and on syntactic response and different that themselves, of suggests particles Holmberg availability response Furthermore, the the to of hand syntax different other the the to systems hand answering typologically one between many the differences in on the systems attributes answering which of languages, study unrelated detailed a is (2015) Holmberg (2015) Holmberg 2.4.2 interpretation positive a desired. is as result response, The the out. of other each cancel meaning-wise features a is there of instances that so antecedent) the of polarity value. truth its reverses on and complement it its negation: as over propositional scopes like it functions proposition essentially the For particle takes German. the like that these particles, reversing suggest address dedicated specifically they with 2012) ( Rawlins languages & for Kramer also handout, cases, talk a In rejected. is ja r qal cetbea frigrsosst eaieatcdns hc is which antecedents, negative to responses affirming as acceptable equally are doch h ai ytci supin o epneprilsi nwr oquestions to answers in particles response for assumptions syntactic basic The nte,sln ntneo i of instance silent Another, . Ni.( Bl osntsmoke.’) not does ‘Bill (= Nein. B: R [ EV Σ P wihi o loe for allowed not is (which nein [ iN EG , E ] yes [ TP and [ vP no Neg R EV r ytcial miuu nti account. this in ambiguous syntactically are 14 [ uN N cusi h P(eetn h negative the (reflecting TP the in occurs R EG EG EV ] Σ etrs e bv) hs two These above). see features, [ etr hi ihtointerpretable two with chain feature ae h Pa opeet(cf. complement as TP the takes ) ± vP o] nngtv setos the assertions, negative In Pol]. ilraucht]]] Bill yes and lu,Mie,Rp Krifka & Repp Meijer, Claus, nein no Kae Rawlins & Kramer . uthv ni an have must nein R N doch R and EV EG EV , early access . A: doch , Holmberg yes drink coffee]]]]] VP [ and the Pol of the elided TP ][ l no o Pol], and assigns its value to P − , which basically functions like jo in that it signals agreement with the [does, T, – 15 right ). In bare particle responses, the response Pol’ or he [ occurs in a negative-polar answer to a positive true no PolP ][ like l in responses to assertions for some speakers may have a o must receive different analyses. For English P yes no , Holmberg assumes that it always forms a head-head relation. Pol] by the head of the NegP further down in the clause. In no [no, – − and rejoinders in (15), where yes FocP is not possible as a bare particle response to positive assertions ( [ encodes the negative polarity feature [ , that it reverses the value of the polarity chain. no no No doch B: No. (He doesn’t drink coffee). is present, Pol must be negative. This assumption accounts for ’s Holmberg no (2015)Holmberg does not consider specialized rejecting particles like With respect to (2015)Holmberg observes that this proposal cannot be easily transferred to Response particles occur in the specifier of a higher Foc(us)P. They encode response clause. (2013)Holmberg suggests for the Swedish particle German So if claim that clause is elided. Consequently, it mustpositive polarity. be This identical results with in the a antecedent, feature that clash is, between have corresponds to the antecedentanalysis and is might not be available to elided. allfor Holmberg speakers. the Withoutproposes possibility going that that into this thepositive details polarity here, feature he allows and forms a head-head relation with the PolP it combines possible response to a question vs.specific an so assertion. that The differences are response-particle- proposes that in responses tobut assertions is it similar does not to encodepreceding a . focused Syntactically, polarity rejoinders feature combine with a valued PolP, which responses to assertions because there are differences with respect to what constitutes a are assumed to be focusedalternatives because that they the pick out question one denotes. offor The the general English two syntactic propositional mechanism () isquestion. illustrated the unvalued Pol head copied from the question. (15)A: Does he drink coffee? polarity feature is unvalued. negative and positive polarity features, respectively.they In assign answers a to value polarity to questions, from the the unvalued question, polarity thus feature forming of an the operator-variable structure. Pol Response head particles that is copied Puzzling response particles feature is valued [ positive assertions, Pol receives the default value [+Pol]. In polarity questions, the He drinks coffee. B: No *(, he doesn’t) with, so that the Pol head must be positive. early access hr eeaut it evaluate we where 4.1.3 , Section in proposal Holmberg’s to back come will We ihrgr opeeec atrso emnrsos atce.T hsed we end, this To particles. response German of patterns preference to regard with un- avoid to and exposition of ease For findings. experimental our to respect with valued vs. (unvalued with combine they complement of kind the in differ which eue cetblt aig ne h supinta rfrnepten a be can patterns preference that assumption the under ratings acceptability used we ilb icse nteeprmna eto.Teeprmnswr designed were experiments The section. experimental the in discussed be will (2015) h rsn td evdtomi ol.Oega a oeprmnal compare experimentally to was goal One goals. main two served study present The etgtdfull-clause vestigated arycmlxadovosyhv motn osqecsfrtepeieanalysis. precise the for consequences important empirical are have the English obviously transfer for and not observations complex Holmberg’s will fairly because We German Swedish. to and English English for in assumptions as rejoinders, same vs. the FocP are — a PolP) in particles i.e., polarity — blocks focused building be semantic may and there syntactic that crucial assumption the the because stage this at tions oue nafimn bare-particle affirming on focused full-clause amined rating 7-point a on context and dialogue given the naturalness in the scale. response judge the to which of was passage, suitability task scene-setting and participants’ short The a context. by dialogue’s preceded the was specified dialogue Each it. to (e.g., response assertion an of consisting acceptability. logues, for hold analogously should 3 patterns Table predicted in the shown Thus, as preference. preference was of for assumption strength underlying reflect the ratings words, acceptability other that In particles, patterns. response acceptability the from of inferred patterns preference the (cf. for questions indicator polar an an- in As as ambiguity 1981). negation assertions Ladd of for to issue German study the the in avoiding narrowed particles thereby We tecedents, response antecedents. standard positive of for paradigm and negative full the insights for general data more assume gain obtained they to not was goal or second whether The to context. regard discourse with the differ the of approaches effects explored on two and focused the antecedents we that negative purpose, to fact responses the this for For data account. experimental saliency of the collection and model feature the Experiments 3 & Roelofsen viz., German, for claims (2013). specific Krifka and make (2015) that Farkas accounts two the test to Holmberg’s nor account 2011) ( Rawlins ’s & Kramer neither complexity, necessary ihrsett emn ed o aet aeadtoa rdfeetassump- different or additional make to have not do we German, to respect With h oreprmnsdfee nterfc fivsiain xeiet1ex- 1 Experiment investigation. of foci their in differed experiments four The dia- short with presented were Participants experiments. four conducted We ja and - ja and - nein nein rsosst oiieasrin.Eprmn in- 2 Experiment assertions. positive to -responses ja rsosst eaieasrin.Eprmn 3 Experiment assertions. negative to -responses and - h e antvciae h asyet. cats the vaccinated hasn’t vet The 16 nein rsosst eaieasrin.The assertions. negative to -responses lu,Mie,Rp Krifka & Repp Meijer, Claus, n a and ) early access ). In They are -responses to in full-clause doch nein and - and ja = 25.31; 36 female) partici- nein M ). -, ja 17 They are talking about which animals the vet . This pattern is predicted to be reversed with nein (e.g., , which should be reflected in higher acceptability ja DR p ) or negative, that is, assumed to be associated with a salient Forty-eight students (19 to 38 years, compared with There were 48 experimental items, 16 filler items, and one practice item. ja They are talking about which animals the vet hasn’t vaccinated yet. (e.g., In all experimental items, the assertion had positive polarity (see the sample DR ¯ p item in (16)). There were eight versions of each experimental item. The response conveyed information about the dialogue’sturns: context. an The assertion dialogue and comprised aparticle response two and to a it. follow-up The phrase, responseaffirming which was or clearly composed rejecting indicated of the whether a assertion. the response response was than chance. Materials Each item started with atwo short interlocutors. scene-setting The passage scene-setting followed passage by introduced a the dialogue two between interlocutors and of Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. Theyand gave informed received a consent monetary for reimbursement participation additional for participant their was participation. replaced In because Experimentman, she/he 1, and was one one not other a additional nativeon speaker participant the of was verification Ger- replaced statements because for her/his the performance experimental items was not significantly better pated in the experiment. The participants of all experiments reported in this paper 3.1 Experiment 1: Responses to positive assertions the saliency account arebe uncontroversial. With a affirming strong responses, preference thereratings for should for rejecting responses. Neither the affirmationbe pattern modulated nor by the the rejection experimental pattern manipulation should of the discourse context. 3.1.1 Method Participants talking about the vet and the vaccination procedure. Experiment 1 collected acceptabilityresponses judgements to positive for assertions. Here, the predictions of the feature model and In Experiment 1, 2, andassociated 4, with the a context salient washas either vaccinated positive, already. that is, assumed to be Experiment 3, the positive context was replaced by a neutral context (e.g., Puzzling response particles focus of Experiment 4 wasnegative assertions. rejecting In full-clause all four experiments, we manipulated the dialogue’s context. were native speakers of German who were recruited from the student population early access h meddqeto salse ra Pfcsfrteasrin hti,the is, that assertion, the [ (e.g., for response focus the VP of broad antecedent established question embedded to the intended polarity, negative salient or a polarity induce positive the convey had to either served and which context the question dialogue’s of embedded an final included The passage polarity). scene-setting (negative rejecting or polarity) (positive affirming either was particle Sml xeietlie fEprmn 1 Experiment of item experimental Sample (16) vaccinated already/hasn’t vaccinated has vet yet. the (e.g., animals question which object-focus about an talking was are question embedded the items, experimental Antecedent: Ldi n idgr r aigterlregre redesigned.’ garden large their having are Hildegard and ‘Ludwig Hildegard: Der Ludwig: Dialogue context: Negative context: Positive gestalten. neu Garten großen ihren lassen Hildegard und Ludwig Setting p h e a acntd[h cats] [the vaccinated has vet The DR ja rasalient a or Tegree a ontelw already.’ lawn the sown has gardener ‘The Rejecting: Affirming: the or gardener Gärtner nein Te r akn bu httegree antdone hasn’t gardener the what about talking are ‘They done has gardener the what about talking are ‘They yet.’ done gemacht done gemacht they Sie already.’ they Sie h olwu haeo h epnewseither was response the of phrase follow-up The . p ¯ talk sprechen talk sprechen YsN,h antsw h anyet.’ lawn the sown hasn’t he ‘Yes/No, already.’ lawn the sown has he ‘Yes/No, DR yes/no Ja/Nein, yes/no Ja/Nein, ontelawn the sown has hat epciey nhl fteeprmna items, experimental the of half In respectively. , has hat. has hat. the den 18 he er he er about.it darüber, about.it darüber, lawn Rasen has hat has hat ] F the den the den already schon F n(6) nteohrhl fthe of half other the In (16)). in what was what was already lawn Rasen lawn Rasen the der the der sown gesät. lu,Mie,Rp Krifka & Repp Meijer, Claus, ). yet noch already schon gardener Gärtner gardener Gärtner not nicht sown gesät. yet noch already schon sown gesät. not nicht They early access = n ), and nein / (‘already’), ja ( schon = 6) were the same in n RESPONSE PARTICLE (‘yet’), in clauses with negative polarity. 19 noch Experiment 1 employed a 2x2x2 within-subject design (positive/negative), (affirming/rejecting). Participants were randomly assigned to eight CONTEXT Each item was presented on a computer screen in three parts. Participants were The filler items all had negative assertions. Across all filler items, the polarity To encourage the participants to read each item carefully, all items were followed RESPONSETYPE reading the response, participants again had to perform a mouse click which caused instructed to read each partto carefully. By the performing next a part, mouse which click, was they presented proceeded below the precedingby part. the Each two item parts started ofplaced the dialogue, in that a is, speech the assertion bubble, and which the was response. Both tagged were by the name of the speaker. After six items per condition. The6) number and of the items number per of condition dataall for points four each per experiments. participant condition Experimental ( for and each fillerin item items six ( were different pseudorandomized presented to orders. the participants Designs and Procedure groups of six participants each,sets and the of experimental six items items weregroups assigned each. according to The to eight the eight counterbalancing conditions schemasuggested for were by complex allotted within-subjectPollatsek to designs &(1995: Well sets 793). and Thus, participant each participant was presented items, it pertained to other information of the scene-setting passage or to the dialogue. of the critical context information, the response particle, and the responseby a type verification statement. For eight items (six experimental and two filler items), the its corresponding assertion, except that thethe subject polarity was of realized the as follow-up a phrasethe pronoun was and assertion, that either depending identical on or thefemales, opposite given or to version. two the The males, polarity two or of interlocutorsresponding a either person female were was and two balanced a across male. items. The gender of the asserting and the in clauses with positive polarity, or embedded question. It was eitherrole a description, single or person, it referred was toassertions a by had group a a proper of transitive name people, verb or referred and a to a by direct a object. role Each description. follow-up All phrase matched Puzzling response particles in present perfect tense and contained a temporal adverb, either verification statement pertained to the critical context information; for the remaining True and false statements were equally distributed over all 64 items. The subject of each assertion was identical to the subject of the corresponding (affirming/rejecting) were counterbalanced. with the presentation of the scene-setting passage. This was followed successively with each item only once, in one of the eight conditions, and each participant received with the factors All embedded questions, assertions, and follow-up phrases of the responses were 16 15 early access vr od and good’ ‘very eecnutdt xmn h neatosrvae ifrn atr o h two the for pattern different a revealed interactions the examine to conducted were aiu onso h aigsaecno easmdt eeul etetdthe treated we equal, be to assumed be cannot scale rating the on points various TYPE rmtesre n eerpae ytevrfiainsaeet atcpnshdto had Participants statement. verification disappeared the scale by rating replaced the were and and item screen the state the judgement, asserted from the the the entering about of knowledge After phrase person’s affairs. follow-up responding of the the take of to indicative as by instructed as well were context response as They and passage response. dialogue scene-setting and the given assertion from the the information in the consideration response into the taking of suitability and scale. rating naturalness 7-point a of appearance the 1946). (Stevens central data of ordinal indication for an measure as appropriate mean an arithmetic not familiar is more mean possibly the the because with tendency than labelled, rather were median endpoints the the use We Only buttons. round small seven of row a was scale The for higher significantly for were than ratings the responses, affirming For lower significantly were ratings the for responses, rejecting For conditions. type response between To interactions data. significant rating yielded the set of data analyses full the the of for results model the the shows summarize, 4 Table 1. Figure in shown package (R by data conducted participants. ordinal for were for intercepts paper random models this the in mixed reported between link analyses intervals cumulative All the using data. As ordinal good’. as the ‘very data to for rating assigned 7 were to bad’ numbers ‘very paper, for this 1 in from reported ratings, analyses statistical all For Discussion and Results 3.1.2 min. practice 60 on one approximately information of lasted the means session read experimental by not The illustrated could was trial. they procedure that The way screen. a participant’s such another in seated were item. They given session. the of incorrect or correct was statement the whether indicate EPNETYPE RESPONSE ja h itiuin ftertnsi h ih odtoso xeiet1are 1 Experiment of conditions eight the in ratings the of distributions The per participants eleven to two with sessions, group in tested were Participants and , ( Median nein EPNEPARTICLE RESPONSE ( erschlecht sehr Median 1) = and 16 hnfor than )i ohcniin of conditions both in 1) = EPNEPARTICLE RESPONSE vr a’ respectively. bad’, ‘very nein eaaeaaye o ust ftedt that data the of for analyses Separate . ( Median 20 15 h atcpns akwst ug the judge to was task participants’ The )i ohcniin of conditions both in 7) = n between and CONTEXT lu,Mie,Rp Krifka & Repp Meijer, Claus, . CONTEXT ja ordinal ( , Median RESPONSE CONTEXT ergut sehr with ) 7) = . early access - RE ), ‘rejecting’ (for .16 .207.25 .81 .36 20.22 n.s. *** 10.57 .74 14.326.99 *** .43 16.28 *** ß SE z 13.76 .48 28.74 *** 1.64 .42 3.93.47 *** .22-7.07 2.09 .36 -19.90 * *** -.62 .31 -1.99-8.87 .61 * -14.54 *** -6.44 .40 -16.27 *** .46 .22-7.22 2.08 .28 -25.54 * *** -7.41 .29 -25.60 *** -.32 .30 -1.06-.61 n.s. .31 -1.95 n.s. CONTEXT ). × 21 RESPONSE PARTICLE RESPONSE PARTICLE RESPONSE PARTICLE RESPONSE PARTICLE RESPONSE PARTICLE × .05 < p RESPONSE PARTICLE 17 RESPONSETYPE RESPONSE PARTICLE RESPONSETYPE RESPONSE PARTICLE × × × × response particle 1.09 .29 3.85 *** ’ (for × .01, * < nein p RESPONSE PARTICLE CONTEXT CONTEXT RESPONSE PARTICLE CONTEXT RESPONSE PARTICLE CONTEXT CONTEXT RESPONSETYPE RESPONSE PARTICLE CONTEXT CONTEXT RESPONSETYPE context : positive context Subset: negative context Subset: positive context Fixed effects Subset: negative context Cumulative link mixed model results for Experiment 1. ), and ‘ .001, ** < p Subset: affirming conditions Subset: rejecting conditions Full data set SPONSETYPE Reference levels for the fixed effects were ‘negative context’ (for *** Puzzling response particles Table 4 17 early access eelwri h ngtv otx’cniin hni h pstv otx’condi- context’ ‘positive the in than conditions context’ ‘negative the in lower were eeuepce.Oeal h aig o epne opstv antecedents positive to responses for ratings the Overall, unexpected. were 4) Table factor the involving effects The riybtentecnetifrain h neeetasrin n h response the and assertion, con- antecedent versus the incongruity information, context polarity the of this effects between of superficial gruity explanation in possible lie A may interactions. finding by unexpected modulated being effect this with tions, of interpretation and use complementary and the confirms It antecedents. positive to 1 Figure h atr frslscrooae h notoesa rdcin o responses for predictions uncontroversial the corroborates results of pattern The nein nafimn n eetn epne,rsetvl,t oiieantecedents. positive to respectively, responses, rejecting and affirming in ‘eygo’,i h ih odtos( conditions eight the in good’), (‘very 7 rprin ftertnsprrtn ee,rnigfo ‘eybd)to × bad’) (‘very 1 from ranging level, rating per ratings the of Proportions proportion per rating level 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 EPNEPARTICLE RESPONSE ja rejecting response particle nein CONTEXT fEprmn 1. Experiment of ) ja affirming 22 mi fet n neato fet,see effects, interaction and effects (main

nein

positive context positive CONTEXT context negative rating levels lu,Mie,Rp Krifka & Repp Meijer, Claus, 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 × EPNETYPE RESPONSE ja early access They (positive/negative), = 25.33; 35 female). (‘The gardener hasn’t The gardener has sown They are talking about M may have been mitigated by CONTEXT ), which may explain the main (affirming/rejecting). As in Exper- CONTEXT , that is, when neither of the two dialogue 23 ja , the positive antecedent ), and two versions of the follow-up phrase of the RESPONSETYPE nein or The design of Experiment 2 was identical to that of Exper- ), and ja nein / . This overall effect of ja ( is less coherent than it is after the ‘positive context’ sentence ( There were 48 participants (19 to 39 years, Der Gärtner hat den Rasen noch nicht gesät The materials comprised 48 experimental items, 16 filler items, and one CONTEXT iment 1, the eight conditionsand were eight counterbalanced sets across of eight items participantin (cf. groups ExperimentPollatsek 1. & Well 1995). The procedure was the same as response (affirming or rejecting). Design and Procedure iment 1, a 2x2x2 within-subject designresponse with particle the factors Materials polarity (e.g., sown the lawn yet’)) and inin all Experiment filler 1, items, there the were assertionsof eight had the versions positive of dialogue’s polarity. each context As experimental (embeddedtwo item: question response two with particles versions ( positive or negative polarity), practice item. The items weremodification. the In same all as experimental those items of of Experiment Experiment 1 2, with the the assertions following had negative materials were used, with the exception that the polarity of the antecedent assertions 3.2.1 Method Participants turns nor the response particle was congruent in polarity with the negative3.2 context. Experiment 2: Responses to negativeExperiment assertions 2 addressed the controversialto cases negative of antecedents. affirming The and method rejecting was responses the same as in Experiment 1 and the same the lawn already are talking about what theeffect gardener of has done already the polarity of the responsepronounced clause for and affirming by responses the with response particle: the effect was most Puzzling response particles clause. For instance, after thewhat ‘negative the context’ gardener sentence has not done yet was reversed, that is, it was negative in all experimental items. early access ,ti neato a edet fet ficnriybtenteplrt fthe of polarity the between incongruity of effects to due be may interaction this 1, al 5 Table hr lowsasgicn neato between interaction significant a was also There eaaeaaye o h w epnetp odtoswr odce.Frrejecting For conducted. inter- were significant conditions a response-type revealed two the set for data analyses full subsets separate two the and of set analysis data of The full action 5. the Table Experiment for in of models given conditions mixed eight link are cumulative the of in results ratings The the 2. of distribution the shows 2 Figure Discussion and Results 3.2.2 *** the with polarity in congruent was turns dialogue two context.5), the Tablepositive of (see neither responses of when affirming effect for is, main only that The significant clause. was response manipulation the context and the antecedent the sentence, context Experiment critical in found were that context involving effects unexpected the to Similar for those than higher significantly for ratings the than ratings responses, frigconditions affirming Subset: conditions rejecting Subset: set data Full p 01 ** .001, < EPNETYPE RESPONSE ja nein uuaieln ie oe eut o xeiet2. Experiment for results model mixed link Cumulative ( ja Median 19 p pstv context: (positive ( Median 0,* .01, < nbt otx odtos eevdsgicnl lower significantly received conditions) context both in 2 = ie effects Fixed EPNEPARTICLE RESPONSE CONTEXT PARTICLE RESPONSE CONTEXT PARTICLE RESPONSE TYPE RESPONSE CONTEXT PARTICLE RESPONSE TYPE RESPONSE CONTEXT nbt otx odtos.Frafimn responses, affirming For conditions). context both in 6 = p with .05 < EPNEPARTICLE RESPONSE Median nein × EPNETYPE RESPONSE 18 24 ( Median ;ngtv context: negative 6; = × CONTEXT nbt otx conditions). context both in 5 = oupc h interactions, the unpack To . .5.21.3*** 13.63 .12 *** 1.65 -4.12 .11 -.46 *** n.s. -23.79 .15 -3.66 -.58 .11 -.06 *** 26.80 .18 4.76 *** -25.71 ** .13 -3.26 -3.03 n.s. .13 -.40 -.54 .11 -.06 .8.6-.3* -2.43 .16 -.38 z SE ß lu,Mie,Rp Krifka & Repp Meijer, Claus, and Median EPNETYPE RESPONSE )were 7) = . early access - RE than for CONTEXT -by- nein , which implies RESPONSETYPE ), ‘rejecting’ (for × doch 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 rating levels rating CONTEXT RESPONSE PARTICLE positive context negative context CONTEXT nein ). 25 affirming ja ) of Experiment 2. nein RESPONSE PARTICLE response particle rejecting ja ’ (for nein should not differ in acceptability because both are assumed to be . For affirming responses, the ratings indicate a higher acceptability

RESPONSE PARTICLE 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00 1.00 proportion per rating level rating per proportion Proportions of the ratings per rating level, ranging from 1 (‘very bad’)× to 7 (‘very good’), in the eight conditions ( ), and ‘ doch nein and ja For rejecting responses, the data indicate a higher acceptability for . This finding is inconsistent with Roelofsen &’s Farkas (2015) specific assump- SPONSETYPE interaction. that blocked by Reference levels for the fixed effects were ‘negative context’ (for Model comparison yielded no better fit for a model including the ja tions for German, that is, the proposed blocking characteristic of Figure 2 Puzzling response particles 18 19 early access ngtv otx’cniin(where condition context’ ‘negative eeteacpaiiypten fetdb h otxulmdlto simplied as modulation contextual the by affected patterns acceptability the were (where condition context’ ‘positive the with compared salient) be to assumed was aito.Frafimn epne,temjrt fpriiat ( participants of majority the responses, affirming For variation. n frigrsosssol aebe fetdb h otx aiuain For manipulation. context the by rejecting affected both been for have pattern should acceptability responses the affirming which and to according account, saliency the higher a implies which and for German considerations acceptability the markedness for with potentials conjunction realization in proposed particles the from derived was which model for atr,adfrfiepriiat h einrtnsddntdiffer. not did ratings median the participants five of for pattern and pattern, overall the for showed ratings participants median affirming higher 42 for responses, patterns rejecting acceptability For their in responses. homogeneous not were participants the nein for rating ( median minority higher a of pattern overall the rated general in speakers responses, than rejecting acceptable for more whereas that shows 3 Figure ratings participants’ median the affirming participant’s exploring for each by determined data We the patterns. saliency of acceptability the inspection by individual nor closer model a feature conducted the we by account, neither predicted was which 2, Experiment in information. context critical the to attention between interaction significant the the Second, to (98%). pertaining high this statements very out verification was rule information the context evidence for rate of accuracy pieces attended predicted the two properly the First, However, having possibility. of information. not context lack participants critical the to the that due to speculate be to might context tempting by is modulation It account. saliency responses the rejecting by for nor affirming for neither Thus, data: context. of the independently by confirmed not is for salient for a acceptability with higher contexts a in predicts account saliency the responses, for acceptability higher a for predicts account saliency the responses, rejecting CONTEXT p DR ja ja h eut fEprmn r loicnitn ihsvrlpeitosof predictions several with inconsistent also are 2 Experiment of results The ogi etrudrtnigo h cetblt atr o frigresponses affirming for pattern acceptability the of understanding better a gain To ja a sue ob ain)—wihi o upre ytedt.Fraffirming For data. the by supported not is which — salient) be to assumed was hnfor than hnfor than hc sspotdb h aa—wt h ifrnebiglre nthe in larger being difference the with — data the by supported is which — hnfor than n and 1 hwdtervrepten hti,ahge einrtn for rating median higher a is, that pattern, reverse the showed 11) = ja ja nein EPNETYPE RESPONSE and - nein n o i atcpns h einrtnsddntdfe.Thus, differ. not did ratings median the participants, six for and , nein hsfidn osntcrepn otepeito ftefeature the of prediction the to correspond not does finding This . nein ncnet ihasalient a with contexts in hnfor than ja o frigrsossteewscnieal individual considerable was there responses affirming for , rsossa ela o rejecting for as well as -responses nein p DR nurlpstv otxs n ihracceptability higher a and contexts) (neutral/positive ja oprdwith compared ja loceryidctsta h atcpnspi close paid participants the that indicates clearly also . eevdhge cetblt aig than ratings acceptability higher received p ¯ DR 26 h rpsto hti ikdu by up picked is that proposition the , ja n atcpn hwdtereverse the showed participant one , p ja DR hnfor than ngtv otxs which — contexts) (negative lu,Mie,Rp Krifka & Repp Meijer, Claus, ja nein and - oee,alarge a However, . n nein nein 1 showed 31) = -responses. hnfor than nein nein nein nein than ja , early access plotted against the ja 1 2 3 4 5 13 ● ● ● ● ● ● # of participants

rejecting affirming . Dot size indicates the number of nein ● ● ● 7 ●● ●● ●●● ●●● ●●●● ●●●● ●●●●● ● ●● 27 ● ● ● ● ● ● 6 ●● ●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 5 ●●● 4 ja ● ● ● ● 3 ● ● ● ● ● 2 ●● ●● ●● ●● ●●● ● 1 ●● ●● ●● ●●●● ●●●●●●●●●●●●●

3 2 1 4 3 2 1 7 6 5 4 7 6 5 nein Experiment 2: Each participant’s median ratingcorresponding for median rating for participants who share the givenresponses. pair of Bottom: median affirming responses. ratings. Top: rejecting It is noteworthy that the interindividual variation in the acceptability patterns responses in Experiment 2 in terms of the overall pattern and the interindivid- individual differences in the acceptability patterns in Section 4.2. 3.3 Experiment 3: Affirming bare-particle responsesExperiment to 3 negative investigated assertions whether the unpredicted results obtained for affirming for affirming responses are not associatedto with personal systematic data differences such with as regard life), region age, (place gender, of and birth, handedness. place We where will they discuss spent possible most interpretations of of their the Figure 3 Puzzling response particles early access a oiae ytecnetr htteuepce fet fcneti Experiment in context of effects unexpected the that conjecture the by motivated was description a by dialogue the preceding passage scene-setting the in provided was eeafimn,ta s h nomto ntersodn esnskoldestate knowledge person’s responding the on information the is, that affirming, were assertion the of subject the mentioned explicitly and topic general a stated which days of couple a in lawn the sow would he that Hildegard (e.g., h aao n diinlpriiatwr elcdbcueseh a completed had she/he because replaced were participant additional one of data The eso a elcdb eta otx eso,weeteebde usinin question embedded the where version, context neutral a by replaced was version a ojcueta h imthbtenteplrt fteflo-pprs and phrase follow-up the of polarity by the targeted between mismatch be the to that assumed by conjecture propDR targeted may the be of to follow-up polarity assumed the propDR the of the matched polarity of the polarity is, the That mismatched phrase clauses. negative were always 2 follow-up Experiment the affirming of up an picks role account, antecedent the tive saliency the scrutinizing to thereby According replicated, phrase. be could variation ual eeinn ftergarden their of redesigning phrase prepositional a by replaced was passage scene-setting the of sentence final the (e.g., proposition what asserted inferable the unequivocally about was knew it person which responding modified from the were information passages included The scene-setting they experiments. The that preceding particles. such the bare of to those changed of were versions responses modified were items The item. Materials chance. than better additional significantly other not one statements was of verification items data the experimental on The the performance minutes. of her/his 70 because after replaced trials were the participant of half than less only Participants Method 3.3.1 replaced was context positive where the context, 3, neutral Experiment as a perceived in by were issue conditions this context’ avoid To ‘positive the coherent. in less dialogues the that suggest 2 of state asserted the regarding person responding the affairs. of state epistemological the of particles. bare were but bare phrase a follow-up whether a on include Information not did 3 Experiment in responses of polarity the naleprmna tm,teasrin a eaieplrt n h responses the and polarity negative had assertions the items, experimental all In and manipulation context the concerned material the of modification further A uiglnh idgr n uwgaetligaottegree n the and gardener the about talking are Ludwig and Hildegard lunch, During hr ee2 xeietlies 0filries n n practice one and items, filler 40 items, experimental 24 were There p hr ee2 atcpns(9t 3years, 33 to (19 participants 24 were There DR ol aerdcdtertnsfor ratings the reduced have could p DR ). p h olwu hae nteafimn odtosof conditions affirming the in phrases follow-up The . DR ja sasmdt esletb default. by salient be to assumed is or nein 28 hudb ae sa frigresponse, affirming an as taken be should nein oepoeti su,the issue, this explore To . lu,Mie,Rp Krifka & Repp Meijer, Claus, nein .Tepstv context positive The ). M rsos oanega- a to -response 34;1 female). 18 23.42; = ja h adnrtold gardener The viz., , p ¯ nein DR One . but , early access ) and nein / ). The Median ja ( nein / .001). Thus, ja nein ( < CONTEXT p . The reference level for It revealed significantly 20 = 11.44, z CONTEXT = .17, RESPONSE PARTICLE SE 29 = 1.96, as the only fixed effect. β = 7 in both context conditions) than for ’. ). Experiment 3 employed a 2x2 within-subject design with nein (neutral/negative) and . Different from the previous experiments, there was also no nein Median / ( ja was ‘ ja RESPONSE PARTICLE CONTEXT In Experiment 3, the verification statements included statements pertaining to the Twenty-four of the 40 filler items also had negative assertions. In all these RESPONSE PARTICLE RESPONSE PARTICLE for the affirming conditions ofthe Experiment previous 2 experiments, and extend there it was to no bare interaction particles. effect As between in Model comparison yielded no better fit for models including fixed factor higher ratings for = 4 in boththe context results conditions) of ( Experiment 3results do for the not affirming corroborate conditions theof of suspicion Experiment the that 2 follow-up the can phrase. be unexpected attributed Rather, to they the replicate presence the unpredicted finding obtained 3.3.2 Result and Discussion Figure4 shows the distribution of the3. ratings The in cumulative the four link conditions mixed of model Experiment for the data of Experiment 3 included the four sets of items (cf. Pollatsek &experiments Well was1995 ). applied The with same procedure the as exceptionParticipants in that were the we informed preceding employed that a the modified scene-settingto instruction. passage what included the information responding as personexplicitly knows asked about to the consider asserted that state information of when affairs. judging They the were bare particle response. information from the scene-setting passageabout on the the asserted responding state person’s knowledge of affairs (in four experimental and six fillerDesign items). and Procedure the factors resulting four conditions were counterbalanced across four participant groups and had positive assertions. The sixinformation, combinations response of particle, the and different responsedistributed versions type over of (affirming/rejecting) these were context filler evenly items. response particles ( items, the responses were rejecting,state that of is, the the responding information person oncritical was the inconsistent context epistemological with information the (neutral/negative) asserted and proposition. the The response particle ( Puzzling response particles experimental item: two versions of the dialogue’s context (neutral/negative) and two were counterbalanced across these 24 filler items. The remaining 16 filler items was consistent with the asserted proposition. There were four versions of each 20 early access ihanurlcnetsre t purpose. its served context neutral a with eehtrgnosi hi cetblt atrs h aoiyo h 4participants 24 the of majority The patterns. acceptability their in heterogeneous were ( 4.2. Section in participants between variability anefc of effect main uha ein g,gne,adhnens.W ilfrhrdsusteiseof issue the the discuss further before, will We As variables handedness. 2. with and Experiment gender, associated age, not in region, are as as patterns such direction acceptability same in the differences individual in for points rating 3 median higher Experiment a is, that pattern, nein reverse the showed participants Seven for rating median participant’s 4 Figure n 7 hwdteoealpteno ihrmda aigfor rating median higher a of pattern overall the showed 17) = si xeiet2 efrhrepoe h vrl eutb eemnn each determining by result overall the explored further we 2, Experiment in As hnfor than o7(vr od) ntefu odtos( conditions four the in bad’) (‘very good’), 1 (‘very from ranging 7 level, rating to per ratings the of Proportions PARTICLE proportion per rating level 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 ja CONTEXT hs h npcino h niiulacpaiiypten in patterns acceptability individual the of inspection the Thus, . neutral context fEprmn 3. Experiment of ) ja hsidctsta h elcmn ftepstv context positive the of replacement the that indicates This . response particle nein ja n for and negative context 30 nein ja .Aan h participants the Again, 5). Figure (see nein rating levels CONTEXT lu,Mie,Rp Krifka & Repp Meijer, Claus, 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 ja × hnfor than RESPONSE nein . early access , in . Dot , and doch doch doch nein nein , ja as an affirming ja in the experimental doch 1 2 3 4 5 ● ● ● ● ● # of participants ● ● 7 ●● ●●●● ●●●●● ● ● ● ● ● 6 31 that we obtained for rejecting responses in ● ja 5 ●● ● ● 4 ● 3 ja (affirming) 2 as compared to 1

nein

3 2 1 7 6 5 4 nein (affirming) nein Experiment 3: Each participant’s median ratingresponses for plotted against the correspondingsize median indicates rating the for number ofmedian participants ratings. who share the given pair of Therefore, the experimental items of Experiment 4 all contained rejecting 21 . In all other respects, the method was the same as in Experiment 2, including not choose the particle thatexactly they one thought particle would answer, fit which best participantsExperiment in had 2 a to did given rate not context. for Each lead acceptability. dialogue to So contained participants the having absence to of make an unnatural choice. responses to negative assertions, and theredoch were three particle levels: the context manipulation. That is,than the neutral context as either in was Experiment negative or 3). positive (rather Note that none of the experiments offered participants a choice between particles: Participants did rejecting responses to negative assertions andthe included dedicated the particle response for particle rejectingacceptability a of negative antecedent, to testExperiment whether 2 the might higher be duesituation. to the absence of the particle 3.4 Experiment 4: Rejecting responses toExperiment negative 4 assertions, including was also a follow-up experiment of Experiment 2. It focused on Figure 5 Puzzling response particles 21 22 early access eei ewe pstv context: (positive between in were with h eutn i odtoswr oneblne cossxpriiatgop and groups participant six across counterbalanced were conditions six resulting The items, experimental all In 2. Experiment of those of versions modified were items The in accuracy their because replaced were participants additional three of data The h itiuino h aig ntefu odtoso xeiet4aedisplayed are 4 Experiment of conditions four the in ratings the of distribution The Materials h eicto akwsntsgicnl etrta hne( chance crash; than (computer better problem significantly technical not was task verification the Participants Method 3.4.1 neato.Rfrnelvl ee‘eaiecnet (for context’ ‘negative the including were model levels a Reference for fit interaction. better no yielded comparison Model for ratings the .24, = for ratings As condition. and context’ ‘negative the in than expected, condition context’ ‘positive the in ratings model effect of mixed effect link significant cumulative a with analysed were ratings The . 6 Figure in Discussion and Results 3.4.2 the in as same the was procedure The 1995). Well & experiments. Pollatsek previous (cf. items of sets six factors the Procedure and Design were (affirming/rejecting) items type response filler the counterbalanced. context 16 and critical the particle, remaining of response polarity The the the information, items, assertions. filler all negative Across assertions. contained positive contained items filler the either positive particles, either of response with three question and embedded experimental polarity, negative context, each dialogue’s or of the versions of versions six follow- two were (i.e., item: There rejecting polarity). were positive responses the with and up-phrases polarity negative had assertions the PARTICLE ja CONTEXT ( z Median 22.09, = ). doch doch CONTEXT hr ee3 xeietlies 8filries n n rcieitem. practice one and items, filler 28 items, experimental 36 were There nein ( nbt otx odtos h oetrtns h aig for ratings the ratings; lowest the conditions) context both in 1 = hr ee3 atcpns(9t 6years, 36 to (19 participants 36 were There and Median ifrdsgicnl rmtertnsfor ratings the from significantly differed p < and CONTEXT EPNEPARTICLE RESPONSE 01 n h aig for ratings the and .001) pstv/eaie and (positive/negative) doch nbt otx odtos eevdtehgetratings highest the received conditions) context both in 7 = xeiet4epoe x ihnsbetdsg with design within-subject 2x3 a employed 4 Experiment ( β ( β -2.81, = Median -.49, = n 1). = 32 SE SE ,;ngtv context: negative 3,5; = sfie factors. fixed as .15, = .12, = EPNEPARTICLE RESPONSE ja eesgicnl ifrn from different significantly were CONTEXT z z -18.17, = -4.07, = EPNEPARTICLE RESPONSE ja ja lu,Mie,Rp Krifka & Repp Meijer, Claus, n ‘ and ) or 22 M and n p nein h oe ile a yielded model The 46;2 female). 26 24.64; = p )o eas fa of because or 2) = 01,wt lower with .001), < nein nein < Median 01.Telatter The .001). or (for ’ ( ja ( doch β -by- / nein 5.35, = RESPONSE ) The 4). = Twelve . CONTEXT / doch nein SE ). early access - more nein 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 was higher than RESPONSE PAR × rating levels rating nein in affirming responses, and doch CONTEXT . nein nein nein and negative context negative ja than for ja 33 ja doch in the experimental situation. Again, the acceptability response particle doch nein ) of Experiment 4. for rejections, just like the participants of Experiment 2 were for positive context positive ja ja Proportions of the ratings perto rating 7 level, ranging (‘very good’), from in 1 (‘very the bad’) six conditions ( TICLE . Two participants showed the reverse pattern, and for four participants,

1.00 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00 ja proportion per rating level rating per proportion of median ratings for all four experiments. approaches, the feature model (Roelofsen & Farkas 2015) and thepredictions: saliency a account higher acceptability for generally uncontroversial predictions.6 Table summarizes the main results in terms 4 General Discussion Figure 6 rejecting responses. For 30 participants,that the for median rating for the median ratings did not differ between pattern was not modulated bycontext the indicates context that manipulation. the However, the lack mainnot of effect taking contextual of into modulation account is the not critical due context information. to With participants respectacceptable to individual than Puzzling response particles finding indicates that the findingrest of upon Experiment the absence 2 of for rejecting responses did not vice versa for rejecting responses. Our rating data (Experiment 1) confirmed these variation, participants in Experiment 4 were quite homogeneous in rating The present study investigated acceptability patterns for German response particles (Krifka 2013). For responses to positive antecedents, both approaches make the same with a focus on responses to negative antecedents. We considered two theoretical early access hc h agtdpoD of propDR targeted the which by blocked is which al 6 Table h ainyacutpeit hti otxswt salient a with contexts in that predicts account saliency The u eut o eetn epne ongtv neeet Eprmn n 4) and 2 (Experiment modulation. for antecedents account, acceptability negative saliency higher to the a as responses suggest well rejecting as for model results feature the our of predictions the Contra contexts. than that predicts it contexts), targets contexts) no particle dedicated 4. to 2 Experiment and in assertions negative obtained to patterns two responses acceptability the for the of patterns shows predictions acceptability the of juxtaposes terms 7 in Table accounts propDRs. about the assumptions of with saliency combination relative in the propDRs targeted and meanings proposed that German for with both assumption combination specific in the the particles from and German considerations, derive the markedness model of feature potentials the realization feature of proposed predictions The predictions. different make a xt1 ,4 atce+flo-pcas,Ep :br particle bare 3: Expt clause, follow-up + particle 4: 2, 1, Expt antecedent Negative antecedent Positive nEp n xt4; Expt and 2 Expt in ifrnebetween difference o eetn epne,tefauemdlpeit ihacpaiiyfrthe for acceptability high a predicts model feature the responses, rejecting For account saliency the and model feature the antecedents, negative to responses For ja ja h ifrnebetween difference The . and p ¯ DR doch nein n set t eain and negation, its asserts and einrtnsprcniini xeiet o4. to 1 Experiments in condition per ratings Median Negative Neutral Positive Negative Positive Context hc agt n asserts and targets which , h rdcin fteslec con r ae nteparticles’ the on based are account saliency the of predictions The . doch doch b a / ja hc elzstefauecmiain[ combination feature the realizes which , b nein xt4: Affirming Expt 2: Expt 4: Expt 2: Expt 1: Expt 1: Expt Rejecting nEp 3; Expt in and ntargeting in smr cetbethan acceptable more is nein nein nein ja ja ja ja ja ja doch , hc ohaeasmdt ebokdby blocked be to assumed are both which , 1, = 2, = 1, = 2, = 1, = 1, = p ¯ DR and p DR sslet ncmaio oneutral/positive to comparison in salient, is , hnfor than nein nein nein nein nein nein 34 ja o otxswt salient a with contexts For . p nein DR hudb agri eaiecnet,in contexts, negative in larger be should xt2: Expt 2: Expt 4, = 1: Expt 6 = 1: Expt 3.5, = 6 = 7 = 7 = smr cetbethan acceptable more is , si unmr cetbethan acceptable more turn in is nein doch doch doch hnfor than xt3: Expt 7 = xt3: Expt 7 = hc smr acceptable more is which , lu,Mie,Rp Krifka & Repp Meijer, Claus, ja p DR ihu contextual without REVERSE (neutral/positive ja ja ja ja ja ja p ¯ DR nein doch 7, = 7, = 6, = 7, = 7, = 7, = (negative ]and +] , which , nein nein nein nein nein nein blocks doch ja 4 = 5 = 5 = 1 = 1 = 4 = , . early access , ja ja , one > ja , which than for DR ja nein show fairly p . Neither of > ], than for nein ja in affirmations − is produced by than for > nein = 5; Experiment doch ja (majority pattern) nein nein nein ja = Median nein ja > > doch nein more acceptable than ]. The saliency account makes the same , which is picked up by ja ja ja DR 35 ¯ > > p AGREE nein doch ja > > > nein , which realizes the marked feature [ > PredictedSaliency account Feature modeldoch Expt 2-4 nein nein Observed ja nein , and predicts the reverse acceptability pattern for negative . Positive/ Neutral Positive Negative Negative nein nein Comparison of the acceptability patternssertions for as responses predicted to negative by as- theacceptability saliency patterns account obtained vs. in feature Experiment model 2 with to the 4. = 4). In view of the large interindividual variation that we observed in in affirming responses to negative antecedents without contextual modulation. The lack of an interaction between the context manipulation and the particle Turning to affirming responses to negative antecedents, the feature model predicts Median Affirming Response type Context Rejecting reveal the predicted interaction. Thus, we conclude that the null result does not manipulation for rejecting responses onthe the other one hand, hand and is affirming essentiallythe responses a lack on null of result, the which predictedboth is interaction interpretable often and in delicate meaningful. the to First, present interpret. it study Yet was can replicated. be Second, as considered argued to before, be finding that some speakers showed amight higher conclude acceptability that for the fairlythese high speakers’ overall response. median However, Figures3 rating(bottom)3.3.2) for and 5 show(see that Sections even speakers3.2.2 thatand high rated ratings for nein It should be noted, however, thatof the negative overall antecedents median were ratings fairly for 3: high (Experiment 2: Experiment 2 and 3 for affirming responses to negative assertions, specifically the prediction for neutral/positive contexts, whereis the picked salient up propDR by is contexts, where the salient propDRthese predictions is was confirmed byresults the (Experiment rating 2 data and obtained 3) in instead the point present to study. The a higher acceptability for a higher acceptability for Puzzling response particles Table 7 we can rule out that the method and materials were not sufficiently sensitive to which realizes the unmarked feature [ 5Ti con a rpsdt sb lrsReosnadDnaFra pc,Dcme 2015). December (p.c., Farkas Donka and Roelofsen Floris by us to proposed was account This 25 24 23 early access +]. ewill we 4.1.3, Section In ). 4.1.2 (Section account saliency the and 4.1.1) (Section hti,orfidnssgetta cetblt atrsfrGra atce in particles German for patterns acceptability that suggest findings our is, That h elzto oeta fteddctdparticle dedicated the of potential realization The ohtefauemdladteslec con sapidt emn especially German, to applied as account saliency the and model feature the both question positive vs. negative a was passage. with it scene-setting is, as the that context in items, discourse experimental the effect. our by in affected null manipulated not true are a antecedents negative represents to rather responses but effect an observe to failure a represent nEgih oee,h osntqatf i observations. his quantify speakers not between differences does individual he reports However, ) 2015 English. ( 2013, in Holmberg English that account. on 2.4.2 saliency Section appear) the from (to by Recall Wagner predicted & as Goodhue context by of effects study recent (2015) a Farkas that & Note Roelofsen in considerations [ markedness feature the absolute with the incompatible realizes is it because [ dispreferred but feature relative possible the realizes it because ([ particle antecedents negative to responses affirming [ combination feature the for ‘fixed’ is it because assumption preference the keep to for preference is [+], realize a model also features. is feature may there relative the that of assume in realization to pattern the but overall potentials the realization feature for original account to way One model feature The 4.1.1 pattern overall the Explaining 4.1 assertions. negative to responses variation affirming interindividual for In the patterns approaches. of acceptability ellipsis interpretations the the possible in by explore captured will be we 4.2, could Section pattern data overall model the feature how the discuss of revisions possible considering by for accounted be can results of of acceptability higher a of pattern. pattern overall expected unexpected the negative the showed to showed participants responses participants affirming all for Not patterns between antecedents. acceptability differences revealed their inspection in data participants closer the a How- above, antecedents. reported negative was to as ever, responses affirming for predictions their concerning osmu,tepeetfidnscs eiu obso h miia aiiyof validity empirical the on doubts serious cast findings present the up, sum To h eiino h etr oe a con o h aaa olw.For follows. as data the for account can model feature the of revision The pattern overall unpredicted the how discuss first will we subsections, next the In nein rfrel elzs[ realizes preferredly 25 Thus, 36 ja AGREE AGREE REVERSE rfrel elzs[ realizes preferredly doch ,wihi preferred. is which ], , − snttuhdb h new the by touched not is ]), u a loraie[ realize also may but ] lu,Mie,Rp Krifka & Repp Meijer, Claus, ja yes stems suitable most the is and − .Nt htthis that Note ]. nein no AGREE ete found neither REVERSE hnof than 24 Nein Some but ] − ja 23 is ]. , . early access is ja DR p blocks . The lower doch . doch ]. DR p . In our revision we , +]; observed accept- DR ¯ p and can also be used because realizing a relative feature, REVERSE DR realizing an absolute feature. p REVERSE nein ja nein . The motivation for this assumption DR ] has a higher realization need than the p is due to was found to be more acceptable than − 37 is most acceptable because it is the dedicated is more salient than nein nein in the experimental situation (see6). Table We DR doch p ), doch ja > ]. So, the markedness assumptions need some adjustment nein is more salient than ] but, as in the original account, we assume that , which may realize [+], is also blocked by > is introduced by a non-embedded constituent, whereas in comparison to AGREE ja DR ¯ p DR ja ¯ p doch REVERSE because it realizes the more specific feature combination. Regarding the effect 3. These two propDRs differ in saliency. 4. The relative saliency of the propDRs is context-dependent. 1. Response particles are propositional anaphors that2. pick upNegative a antecedents propDR. introduce two propDRs, ¯ For rejecting responses to negative antecedents ([ introduced by an embedded constituent. There is evidence that discourse referents the fourth assumption is dismissed,to and the the third latter, assumption recall isnegative altered. that antecedent With introduces, Krifka(2013) respect proposed that of the twois propDRs the fact that that a they can be reconciledHowever, with the results these are assumptions clearly but inconsistentcourse with do for the not revising fourth the assumption. directly saliency This support account: sets the them. the fourth assumption needs toproposed be revision dismissed of the saliency account, the first two assumptions are maintained, Before discussing a possible revisionmain of assumptions: the saliency account, let us first recall its acceptability of that is, a feature whose realization is preferred, and relative features because both favour the realization of [ nein of blocking, we must assumebut that only blocking to does a not dispreferenceirrespective lead because of to the stark presence unacceptability of are assuming that in future research. ability pattern: particle for that feature combination.it In realizes [ principle, 4.1.2 The saliency account Puzzling response particles according to which the markedunmarked feature feature [ [ The results of the present study are silent with regard to the first three assumptions; The markedness assumption in this case is not in conflict with the preference for will assume that whereas there are no constraints with regard to the first three assumptions. In our 28 27 26 early access o meddclauses, embedded for (2005) Clifton & Frazier DPs, embedded for (1999) Yang & .A result, a As (2013). Presupposition sget htPtrntbigi elni nise hc iessteueof use the licenses which issue, an is Berlin in being not Peter that suggests (i) in remark A’s (i)-(ii). oefrpooiin ntesoeo eainnest eepoe nfuture that in assume explored will be we to Specifically, needs negation of scope the plays in indeed research. embedding not for or Whether role appositives. a for (2015) Koev & Syrett and Ledoux Hendrick, Gordon, cf. accessible, easily less are constituents embedded from eaeuigteO omls saueu olt ecietedt.Tepooe akn em to seems ranking best. proposed experiments The our data. in the obtained describe we to that tool pattern useful data a the as describe formalism OT the using are We hier. gestern war Peter glaube, Ich A: (i) see possible, accommodation is doch contexts specific very in Only 3). Footnote also (see accommodate of like presupposition should the English that for assuming proposal are original We Krifka’s whether unclear revised. thus of be is likewise saliencies It relative German. the than about languages assumption other revised the far how in three question the open an of is ranking it the Moreover, where 8, Table in changed. given been tableau OT has the constraints in as derived be can targets is it is it now a be cannot hence 2013), Krifka in (as particle implicature. the conversational of meaning conventional the when negation its asserts of entry lexical the p ¯ DR soiia rpslas ntelxcletyof entry lexical the in also proposal original Krifka’s from deviate will We ihteeasmtosi lc,tedt atr bevdi h rsn study present the in observed pattern data the place, in assumptions these With for entries lexical the to respect With too and . nein Dc,e a hier. war er Doch, B: .Smlrto Similar 2009). Kripke (cf. p p ¯ DR 26 DR nein hc iltsteconstraint the violates which Ys ewshere.’ was he ‘Yes, IbleePtrwshr yesterday.’ here was Peter believe ‘I a odcoslnusial.Tepeetsuyde o lo o ocuin about conclusions for allow not does study present The cross-linguistically. hold may and htpcsu h aepoD as propDR same the up picks that 2.2). Section (see B LOCK doch doch blocks setal nue deec oteprinciple the to adherence ensures essentially nldstepeupsto that presupposition the includes p 27 ¯ DR 28 saalbe h rspoiinof presupposition The available. is nein too doch h rspoiinthat presupposition the , doch rte than (rather B 38 ssmlrt h rspoiino diieparticles additive of presupposition the to similar is osnttarget not does ja LOCK and Ptrwrgsenhier. gestern war Peter A: (ii) doch nein eas ieiscompetitor its like because ja #oh rwrhier. war er #Doch, B: nrjcigrsossbecause responses rejecting in ) ec,i h eie version, revised the in Hence, . Krifka from deviate not do we Ys ewshere.’ was he ‘Yes, yesterday.’ here was ‘Peter p p ¯ lu,Mie,Rp Krifka & Repp Meijer, Claus, DR DR doch saalbei ifiutto difficult is available is n seti.Rather, it. assert and targets doch Maximize spr of part is p ¯ DR doch doch and it . early access with ). The   violates doch (17C) nein * LOCK . We propose to , and B (Keller 2000) and nein AL nein S , * ja ON than for *N does not incur any constraint ja ja because in an affirmation it would are non-optimal but is the optimal choice. It does not , RES are appropriate affirming responses ja AL ) is not supported by the overall data nein S no doch and ON 39 is the optimal candidate for affirmations of linear optimality theory and (17B) N is not totally unacceptable in affirmations is ja nein violates the highest-ranked constraint and is yes (see nein = affirming= affirming * * * = rejecting = affirming = rejecting = rejecting In Section 2.4.1, we saw that Kramer & Rawlins Meaning P Doch nein DR DR DR DR DR DR ¯ ¯ ¯ p p p p p p . (Boersma & Hayes 2001). ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ DR p that we proposed in Section 2.4.1 (repeated in ja DR p violates the constraint * DR DR DR DR DR DR ¯ ¯ ¯ p p p p p p propDR Modified saliency account: OTnegative antecedents. tableau for Nein doch Particle Targeted ja nein For rejections of negative antecedents, The tableau in8 Table shows that , which is what we found in our experimental investigations. Note that the latter pattern. However, the finding that to negative questions, which is aextended claim to that assertions, for and reasons toclaim: of German. we expository Our found simplicity experimental an we results overall dokeep higher not the acceptability quite analysis for fit for that analysis that we proposed for stochastic optimality theory a lower-ranked constraint and thusja may be expectedassumption to is be only more compatible acceptable withcan an than still OT formalism differ where in non-optimal theirthat candidates can degree model of graded acceptability. acceptability Two are variants of optimality theory 4.1.3 The ellipsis approaches Kramer and Rawlins (2011) negative antecedents because in contrast to pick up the non-salient predicted to be highly unacceptable, which is uncontroversial. incur any constraint violations. Both Salient propDR: ¯ Puzzling response particles violations. (2011) assume for English that both Table 8 29 early access (18C) that propose (2012) Kae Rawlins & Kramer that recall antecedents, negative to responses rejecting to Turning i. htol one only that viz., omeg(2015) Holmberg Bl actnct ‘ilde o smoke.’) not does (‘Bill nicht. raucht Bill A: (17) medium acceptability. a medium to the provide lead not that of does mechanisms grammar repair acceptability the psycholinguistic If be response. must affirming there an structure as suitable less it make ‘medium’ not. in for does structure it room or the little structure is provides a There provides account. grammar the Rawlins’ either & acceptability: Kramer in capture to hard hr r ytxmdl htalwfrgaine o es Tsna cons nepoainof exploration paper. An this accounts. of OT-syntax scope least the not beyond gradience, is for allow these might that it models speakers syntax are some There for However, utterance. previous a with agreement signal yes smoke.’) not does (‘Bill nicht. raucht Bill A: (18) why is which acceptability, reduces than assumption acceptable this less of violation proposal, a (2012)’s that Rawlins late & Kramer in assumptions key the of assumption one this against Problematically, goes answer. rejecting positive-polar, a creating reading, that assumption than ratings for assumption an inter- such positive a producing a thus of negation, pretation clausal i of semantics of the instance have another essentially contains TP elided the rsosst nasrinuulyfnto ieterejoinders the like function usually assertion an to -responses oehrwt h oe i lower the with together : J.( Bl osntsmoke.’) not does ‘Bill (= Ja. C: #en =‘ilde o smoke.’) not does ‘Bill (= #Nein. B: ()en =‘ilsmokes.’) ‘Bill (= (#)Nein. C: smokes.’) ‘Bill (= Doch. B: ja doch [ [ Σ Σ sarjcigrsos ongtv neeet a ecpue ythe by captured be can antecedents negative to response rejecting a as [ [ Σ Σ P P nein P P (17B) nein ja rsos oangtv neeet u nig eeal support generally findings Our antecedent. negative a to -response nein doch N [ E doch EG doch sue that assumes (2015) Holmberg that saw we 2.4.2, Section In ] lasecdsa nepeal eaieplrt etr,see feature, polarity negative interpretable an encodes always [ uN rteems esm lentv nlsswihlasto leads which analysis alternative some be must there or , [ [ [ TP iN etr ntecas a eitrrtbe n ol postu- could One interpretable. be may clause the in feature iR doch EG EG noe nitrrtbervrigfaue i feature, reversing interpretable an encodes EV (18). like discourses in (17B) [ , vP E , ] E ] ] [ h nigthat finding The . Neg [ TP [ TP TP N hr utb eatco rgai atr that factors pragmatic or semantic be must there ∅ EG [ [ [ iNEG vP [ vP iR etr hswudpoueadul negation double a produce would this feature Neg EV Neg ] ] 40 [ [ [ vP vP [ iN iN EG ilraucht]]]] Bill Neg EG R ] ] EV [ vP nein [ [ vP uN see , ilraucht]]]] Bill ilraucht]]]] Bill EG eevdhge acceptability higher received ] (18B) [ vP lu,Mie,Rp Krifka & Repp Meijer, Claus, ilraucht]]]] Bill ohi Both . true 29 ftegrammar the If R R or EV EV right n that and , features nein they ; is early access nein nein in rejecting acceptability ja ja -responses to assertions , reverse the value of the yes doch but higher ratings than doch 41 signals agreement both after negative and ja , such a head-head relation always is present. : no ja , and by German jo -responses, ’sHolmberg system fits very well except that the ja in affirming responses to negative assertions. One could assume that Overall, ’sHolmberg account allows for considerable ambiguity and a consider- In sum, the ellipsis accounts seem to be less successful than the anaphor accounts For rejections of negative assertions, (2013)Holmberg suggested that dedicated For affirming nein that comprise a particle and a follow-up phrase (Experiment 2) as well as for assertions show substantial interindividual variation. This holds both for responses in the explanation of thesponse particles. acceptability While patterns they that can we distinguish found in a for fairly the straightforward German way re- between interindividual variation that we found in affirmations to negative antecedents. 4.2 Interindividual variation issue with medium acceptability. able number of syntactic analyses for the response particles: as focussed particles particles like Swedish lower polarity chain. Thisreceived fits lower acceptability the ratings German than discourses data. is However, not the easily finding explained that in ’sHolmberg account because of the general an empirical problem with respectof to the fairly high butoptionally lower-than- enters a head-head relationleads in to such reduced discourses acceptability. This and assumptionacceptability that raises in this similar syntactic optionality issues accounts about as graded the one we raised in our discussion of Kramer assumption of an occasionalcannot be head-head transferred relation to for German after positive assertions, itantecedent. always Similarly to combinesKramer with & a’s Rawlins account, copy’sHolmberg proposal of faces the polarity-valued out that the empirical observations for English might not bean transferable analysis to in German, ’sHolmberg general framework might fit the overall data pattern that Puzzling response particles carry a positive polarity feature, whichis, must form agree a in head-head its relation. value For with the Pol head, that (as responses to questions), as rejoinders without head-head relation, as rejoinders As was stated before, the acceptability data for affirming responses to negative with head-head relation. It does not seem to be a very parsimonious approach. which would obviously have repercussions for the precise analysis. Letwe us found see in how our experiments. &(2011). Rawlins We suggested that this system in principle can be carried over to German but pointed ‘the most acceptable’ and‘in-between’ ‘the findings least pose acceptable’ problems. particle In in the a next given subsection, dialogue, we the will address the 30 early access edsusdi h rvostresbetosddntso o l atcpns A participants. all for show not did subsections three previous the in discussed we osblt sta hysml eetsm ag aito u orno os,viz., noise, random to due variation large some reflect simply they that is possibility difference. no showed 3) Experiment in Experiment none in 2; 24 for Experiment of ratings 7 2; median Experiment higher in showed 48 3) of (11 participants that of pattern number considerable data overall unexpected The 3). (Experiment responses particle bare nlddcniin ihrjcigrsoss h aao hc eeue ocluaetecorrelation. the calculate to used items were filler which the of assertions, data negative the to responses, responses affirming rejecting on with was conditions 3 included Experiment of focus the Although responses for affirming the ratings in group, particles acceptability response One groups use antecedents. two they negative are way there the to that in possible differ is that It speakers grammars. of different reflect actually they grammar. that same the share be they should if speakers patterns to all judgement expected for The is speaker. same one grammar the within the observed judgements of the gradient explain in cannot result a gradience as predicts Gradience grammar variation. a interindividual that However, fact degree. the by differ view should our acceptability in their that share and accounts antecedents, two negative both The to versions. principle revised in saliency their that the in and implication and model the original feature first their the At in grammar. with both consistent the account be of to property seems a explanation of this result affirming sight, a of as acceptability antecedents negative the to in responses gradience reflects variation account. interindividual variation-as-noise the the that with line in not clearly is which types, response two 3 The for antecedents. those negative with types for response judgements 3 two acceptability and the 2 highest between Experiment covariation the involve of a to exhibit judgements expected acceptability is the Farkas Moreover, that & demands. type Roelofsen processing response 1976, this (Pope is type it response Accordingly, marked assertions 2015). most negative the to be responses to rejecting considered literature, are costs the affirming processing In why higher responses. evident with rejecting all associated than at be not should is assertions negative it Yet, to more conditions. responses in other results the turn with in compared which noise response demands, this processing type: that high speculate particularly response involves might particular type One one assertions. for negative to found responses only affirming was variation interindividual large a variation unsystematic 30 : tpeet h rgno h ifrn cetblt atrsi o la.One clear. not is patterns acceptability different the of origin the present, At hr osblt oacutfrtedfeetacpaiiypten st assume to is patterns acceptability different the for account to possibility third A is reviewer, anonymous an by us to suggested was which possibility, second A r τ .63, = nein p nrjcigrsoss(xeiet2: (Experiment responses rejecting in < 01.Ti nigpit oasseai oaito ewe the between covariation systematic a to points finding This .001). oee,ti aito-snieacutlae pnwhy open leaves account variation-as-noise this However, . ja oprdwith compared ja nafimn epne eepstvl orltdwith correlated positively were responses affirming in ja nein and 42 ja hnfor than nein nein gop prefers -group, h te ru,the group, other The . a eue nafimn responses affirming in used be can ja oepriiat 6o 8in 48 of (6 participants some , r τ .35, = lu,Mie,Rp Krifka & Repp Meijer, Claus, ja eutn nhigher in resulting , p < 0;Experiment .01; nein -group, early access was -group. , which than for nein compared nein nein in affirming nein and nein ja nein than for and ja to be fairly acceptable ja -group and a ja nein for such affirmations, and vice versa. nein 43 . So far I did not try to correct her. B: Your ja as an affirming response to negative antecedents. It nein , resulting in higher acceptability ratings for nein The fact that speakers of German are aware of the two different 31 . The minority pattern does conform with the previous descriptions. This fact to affirm a negative antecedent might still judge ja ja Third, the results of a pilot study with a different method, a production-like task, Second, there is evidence that native speakers of German, or at least some of First, the overall pattern of higher acceptability ratings for . To be sure, the present data cannot provide direct evidence for the existence of fragen/, http://www.dict.cc/forum-questions/detail-705463-Ja-Nein-Doch-Frage.html also point to the existenceParticipants of were two presented groups with of speakers, aand a set had of to affirming indicate responses which to of a negative the assertion responsesSee they e.g., wouldhttps://forum.wordreference.com/threads/negative-antwort-auf-negative-fragen-ein-fall- use themselves.der-doppelten-verneinung.1314307/, The majority http://canoo.net/blog/2007/04/18/antwort-auf-verneinte- rather small. When judging acceptability, peoplethey may are take accustomed into to, account such variationuse as that different uses of responsebecause particles. Speakers they who know that other speakers use daughter is right”. Suchspeakers statements bring up can the issue be ofantecedents. found two ways on of expressing web affirming forums, responsesresponse to where strategies negative native corroborates thespeakers. assumption Moreover, this that fact there may are alsoExperiments explain two 2 why and subgroups for 3, of some the of difference the between participants the in median ratings for them, are acquainted with tworesponses different usage to patterns negative of antecedents. Evidence for this comes fromquestions” statements or “A: like My daughter uses previous descriptions of the use of German response particles arepattern simply in incorrect. the current study, that is, the higher acceptability ratingssuggests for that there actually existspattern holds. a subgroup of speakers for which the ‘official’ pected. Neither the feature modelon nor the the basis saliency account, of which intuitiveFurthermore, judgements were highly of developed respected native speakers ‘official’ descriptions (albeittion of only German2006: few), predicted (e.g., 603) it. Dudenredak- only list is tempting to conclude from the overall findings of the present study that these two different groups of speakers.of However, the there assumption are of further two argumentspatterns groups in in in Experiments favour addition 2 to and the 3. finding of different acceptability Puzzling response particles has a preference for ja A more differentiated conclusion emerges when we take into accountwith the minority was shown by the majority of the participants but not by all of them, was unex- “I’m at loggerheads with my students and colleagues as to how to affirm negative 31 early access ilbifl ics o h ortertclapoce orsos atce htwe that particles response to approaches theoretical four the how discuss briefly will hs head whose for feature polarity syntactic a Assuming ifrn cetblt atrsosre nEprmn n ftepeetstudy present the of 3 the and grammars. that 2 different assumption Experiment reflect the in to observed credit patterns additional acceptability lends different and This variation methods. systematic different to two points from variation interindividual for evidence converging the the chose consistently participants of ne-lua ytci eednis nldn ocr his hsi uhls the less much is this chains, with concord NegP, including of version dependencies, positive syntactic a inner-clausal is there that assume not do Rawlins & Kramer but why Since reason trivial. no is not there actually feature, is polarity assumption latter the However, the for the Conversely, assertion negative a to response the that proposal version. original its in account saliency the the of account the the for that hold 4.1.2 ), may the Section opposite viz. the (see pattern, of assumed overall saliencies the we relative for the pattern, account to To regard propDR. with positive difference and a negative to attributed be could group [ feature [ absolute ([ the antecedents negative realizes to it consequence, responses because affirming a for As particle features. suitable absolute most the realize direct preferably the In to features. for relative assumption of this realization to the the opposition for to preference corresponds a that assumed pattern we revision, the account viz., to antecedents, model for negative feature ratings higher to the of of pattern revision features. overall possible of the types a for particular discussed of we realization 4.1.1 the Section for In preferences their in or potentials the of grammars different we the concluding, capture Before might research. discussed future in to up seems follow groups to speaker different one two promising of most terms the in be one the explanations three these for patterns acceptability the AGREE ehv osdrdtrepsiiiist xli h neidvda aito in variation interindividual the explain to possibilities three considered have We (2011) Rawlins & Kramer for assume could we accounts, ellipsis the to Turning the between difference the account, saliency the Within realization feature the in differ could groups two the model, feature the Within nein ]. .Tu,teeis there Thus, 2017). Meijer & Krifka Repp, Claus, (Frühauf, -response ja ol ne etr hi.As,wis eaini elkonfor well-known is negation whilst Also, chain. feature a enter could ja nein -group’s nein srcuei 1B bv,wihi o vial sa affirming an as available not is which above, (17B) in -structure gopcnom oteasmtosfrdfutcnet of contexts default for assumptions the to conforms -group nein ja srcuei 1B)i o vial o the for available not is (17B’) in -structure ja -group; and nein ja ja rsos n ioiycnitnl chose consistently minority a and -response p 44 − ja gop the -group, DR ja ja safimtoso eaieasrin.Of assertions. negative of affirmations as ,whereas ], hudntcmiewt eaieTP. negative a with combine not should gop saalbefrthe for available is -group, 2015) Holmberg (cf. option an be might ja ol emr ain than salient more be would hnfor than p ¯ DR smr ain than salient more is nein ja ja nein elzsterltv feature relative the realizes gopadthe and -group gopcudb assumed be could -group lu,Mie,Rp Krifka & Repp Meijer, Claus, safimn responses affirming as ja gopadthe and -group ja nein (like ja gop nthe In -group. ol ethe be would yes nein AGREE nein nein p ¯ DR p ja a no has ) DR -group. -group. -group. -group Thus, . The . nein , − ]), - early access -group, -group and nein in affirming ja nein and ja ). cannot be used as an affirming response ja 45 nein . Rather, it has the positive polarity feature that right . or , in this group, always enters a head-head relation with nein true Nein is preferred over and ja doch -responses, which is a task that goes beyond the scope of the present -group can be accounted for by different response strategies, in the saliency nein A key finding of the current study is that there are differences between par- To summarize, in the feature model, the difference between the Within ’sHolmberg ) (2015 framework, we could assume that in the nein is not a rejoinder like - and the investigation of the prosody of particle responses, which in recent studies on to further explore and define the existence and nature ofof different each groups other, of and speakers. thelinguistic consistency of tasks individual (e.g., speakers within interpretationantecedents and vs. across (assertions production) different vs. questions). as Furthermore, well future as research different must include types of importance of systematic and controlled quantitative investigations. ticipants. On the basisof of speakers, the who data, differ we inresponses suggested their to that acceptability negative there patterns assertions. Clearly, for might more, be and two different types groups of data is needed have not been quantitatively investigated so far. Theparticles findings in terms were of inconsistent propositionalmodel anaphora, and Roelofsen’sKrifka & (2013)’s Farkas saliency (2015) account. feature reproducible. However, Hence, the the unexpected present results study were adds to the growing body of evidence for the groups for German Experimental studies on the use and interpretation of response particles are sparse. account, it is mainly attributedthe to ellipsis accounts negation-related it processing is differences,plausible the and to syntactic in assume feature that setup some thatresponses. of makes For the these instance, difference. factors negation-related It have processing is effects differencesin in should the domains be processing beyond detectable of polar negative sentencesthis in issue general. may help Experimental to investigations of conduct more decisive tests on the existence of two speaker 5 Conclusion to negative antecedents. the negative polarity head (which, however,rejections, requires where an additional assumption for the paper. ja head lower down in the clause. Therefore, Puzzling response particles case for positive polarity. Therefore, thisja assumption requires careful study beyond This includes the investigation of the awareness of the different groups of speakers The present series of experiments addressed response particles in German, which with the predictions of two recent theoretical approaches to the German response we just discussed, which needs to enter a syntactic chain with a positive polarity early access etr oe n h ainyacut swl so lissacut.I ean an remains It accounts. ellipsis of as well as account, saliency all. the at and here model addressed feature Sudo not 2004, have Han we & that Romero issue factors (e.g., an of questions being effects polar latter of the the bias identify 2013), and to A scope is ). 2015 negation research as Prieto future such 2013, & for al. task Espinal et relevant Tubau, (Goodhue highly role González-Fuente, further important 2015, an Wagner play & to shown Goodhue been has Catalan and English nitgaigpoesn nihsi diint hoeia nihsfo different succeeds from that insights of one theoretical interpretation is to account and addition approaches. valid in choice most insights the the processing that integrating in out in involved turn processes may It various particles. the response on negation of as representation may well and endeavour processing as This revisions. the these on of assumptions value detailed and necessitate scope the evaluate to task empirical oacutfrtepeetfidns edsusdpsil eiin fthe of revisions possible discussed we findings, present the for account To 46 lu,Mie,Rp Krifka & Repp Meijer, Claus, early access 0.37 0.37 ± ± Linguistics and 32 = 6.63, 95% CI = = 6.89, 95% CI = . London: Routledge. doch doch = 1.39, 95% CI = ±0.18 = 4.96, 95% CI == ±0.43, 4.17, 95% CI = ±0.71 = 6.61, 95% CI = ±0.23 = 6.50, 95% CI = ±0.27 = 5.24, 95% CI = ±0.45 = 5.44, 95% CI = ±0.42 = 1.33, 95% CI = ±0.26 = 4.30, 95% CI == ±0.43, 4.31, 95% CI = ±0.75 = 3.66, = 4.02, nein nein nein nein nein nein nein nein nein nein nein nein 47 Rejecting Affirming = 5.99, = 6.70, = 6.26, = 1.23, = 1.35, = 2.16, = 2.06, = 6.18, = 5.91, = 5.83, = 1.73, = 1.90, ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja Expt 3: Expt 1: Expt 2: Expt 4: Expt 2: Expt 4: Expt 1: Expt 2: Expt 1: Expt 1: Expt 2: Expt 3: / a b Accessing noun-phrase antecedents 27. 1–53. . https://doi.org/10.1023/b:ling.0000010796.76522.7a in Expt. 3; Expt. 1, 2, 4: particle + follow-up clause, Expt. 3: bare Positive context Positive Neutral Negative context Negative context Negative context Positive context Negative context Positive context b Mean ratings per condition in Experiment 1the to respective context 4. and The response polarity 95%CIs condition. are within-subject confidence intervals associated with the particle effect in Philosophy in Expt. 2; Negative antecedent Positive antecedent Negative antecedent Positive antecedent here for those readers who might be interested in them. Beaver, David. 2004. The optimization of discourse anaphora. As was pointed out inarithmetic Section 3.1.2 meansthe and underlying confidence ratingfollowing intervals data the are are recommendations of of incorrect the the measures ordinal editor for data and one type. the anonymous Hence, present reviewer, we data. present However, these measures particle. Ariel, Mira. 1990. a Puzzling response particles Appendix Table 9 32 early access uerdkin 2006. Dudenredaktion. 2012. Hardarik. Blühdorn, 2004. (eds.). Zeevat Henk & Reinhard Blutner, 2011. (eds.). Mattausch Jason & Anton Benz, odn ee . adl edik er eox&Ci ugYn.1999. Yang. Lung Chin & Ledoux Kerry Hendrick, Randall C., Peter Gordon, Intonation, appear. to Wagner. Michael & Daniel Goodhue, you how it’s say, you what just not It’s 2015. Wagner. Michael & Daniel Goodhue, in prosody reverse English 2013. Wagner. Michael & Pickett James Daniel, Goodhue, Prieto. Pilar & Espinal Teresa M. Tubau, Susagna Santiago, González-Fuente, 2000. Sag. A. Ivan & Jonathan Ginzburg, Meijer. Marlijn A. & Krifka Manfred Repp, Sophie Claus, Processing Berry divide: Felix, polar syntax-discourse Frühauf, and The assertions 2005. to Clifton. reacting Charles On & Lyn 2010. Frazier, Bruce. B. Kim & F. Donka Farkas, sentential and N-words 2013. Roelofsen. Floris & algo- Farkas learning Donka Adrian, gradual Brasoveanu, the of tests Empirical 2001. Hayes. Bruce & Paul Boersma, 1080/016909699386266. https://doi.org/10.1075/la.180. Benjamins. John Amsterdam: Pragmatics yooia vdneo h s fpooyadgesture. and prosody of use the on evidence Typological e-orsoss In responses. yes-no arVerlag. Narr 9780230501409. ics rcsigo eeec n h tutr flnug:A nlsso complex of analysis An language: of phrases. structure noun the and reference of Processing http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/003082. Glossa. in publication for 227–240. Intonation, it: say Dialogue of Pragmatics and https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00899. propositions? 6(899). negative rejecting for strategy answering universal a there Is 2015. interrogatives English of use and meaning, Experimental biannual Cologne. 7th of the University at Conference, Presented Pragmatics data. interpretation and data German erence for systems response Two 2017. ellipsis. questions. ellipsis. VP and particles polarity from Evidence negation: rithm. https://doi.org/10.1057/ McMillan. Palgrave York: New & Houndmills . igitcInquiry Linguistic Syntax ora fSemantics of Journal https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.6.7. 1–33. 6(7). agaeadCgiieProcess Cognitive and Language . https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2005.00077.x 121–174. 8. yes ue:DeGrammatik Die Duden: eDa 03(ila) 7hWrso nteSemantics the on Workshop 17th (DialDam): 2013 SemDial and eaini etce ngto nGerman] in [negation Deutschen im Negation https://doi.org/10.1162/002438901554586. 45–86. 32. no 73–81. , In . https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffp010. 81–118. 27. ot atLnusisScey(NELS) Society Linguistics East North 48 nergtv netgtos h form, The investigations: Interrogative ja tnod A SIPublications. CSLI CA: Stanford, . and anem uevra t edn. 7th Dudenverlag Mannheim: . piaiyter n pragmat- and theory Optimality iietoa piaiytheory optimality Bidirectional nein https://doi.org/10. 353–379. 14. vdnefo sg pref- usage from Evidence ? lu,Mie,Rp Krifka & Repp Meijer, Claus, rnir nPsychology in Frontiers yes and eatc and Semantics no Tübingen: . Accepted . o.45, vol. , . early access 61. North Semantics 69. 274–307. as a case of con- , 487–535. Berlin: Studia Linguistica . Cambridge, MA: , vol. 17, 164–171. Studia Linguistica doch Language . Berlin: de Gruyter. https: . Oxford: Oxford University 40. 367–386. https://doi.org/10.1162/ Semantik/Semantics , 90–98. 49 : University of Edinburgh dissertation. , 1–18. . https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v0i0.2676 , vol. 39, 479–491. Chicago Linguistics Society Linguistic Inquiry The syntax of yes and no The Welsh answering system Lexikon deutscher Partikeln [Dictionary of German parti- The structure of the Japanese language Gradience in grammar. Experimental and computational SPRIK Conference. Explicit and implicit information in text. 128. 31–50. Negation in syntax: On the nature of functional categories and . Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation. Lingua . Leipzig: Verlag Enzyklopädie. MIT Press. questions and tag questions. In projections and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 23 the projection problem. ling.2009.40.3.367. positive and negative contexts. Paper presented at ‘Workshop on the Syntax of trastive focus. In aspects of degrees of grammaticality Swedish. Press. . https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198701859.001.0001 cles] 55. 141–174. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9582.00077. 212–236. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9582.2007.00135.x . . https://doi.org/10.2307/416535 de Gruyter. and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Information structure across languages v. Stechow & Dieter Wunderlich (eds.), . //doi.org/10.1515/9783110800593 East Linguistics Society (NELS) Answers to Polar Questions’, Newcastle University. Ladd, D. Robert. 1981. A first look atLaka, the Itziar. 1990. semantics and pragmatics of negative Kripke, Saul. 2009. Presupposition and anaphora: Remarks on the formulation of Kuno, Susumu. 1973. Kramer, Ruth & Kyle Rawlins. 2011. Polarity particles: an ellipsis account.Kramer, Ruth In & Kyle Rawlins. 2012. An ellipsis approach to answer particles in Krifka, Manfred. 2013. Response particles as propositional anaphors. In Karagjosova, Elena. 2006. The German response particle Keller, Frank. 2000. Holmberg, Anders. 2013. The syntax of answers to polar questionsHolmberg, in Anders. English 2015. and Jones, Bob Morris. 1999. Holmberg, Anders. 2001. The syntax of yes and no inHolmberg, Finnish. Anders. 2007. Null subjects and polarity focus. Heim, Irene. 1991. Artikel und Definitheit [Articles and Definiteness]. In Armin Helbig, Gerhard. 1988. Puzzling response particles Gundel, Jeanette K., Nancy Hedberg & Ron Zacharski. 1993. Cognitive status early access ep ohe 2009. Sophie. Repp, 1976. Emily. Pope, designs counterbalanced of use the On 1995. Well. D. Arnold & Alexander Pollatsek, 2001. Jason. Merchant, Particle 2015. Krifka. Manfred & Repp Sophie Claus, Berry Marlijn, A. Meijer, etr ak 01 s‘o oc-niao?No! force-indicator? a ‘no’ Is 2011. Mark. Textor, truth-conditional the for evidence Experimental 2015. Koev. Todor & Kristen Syrett, Daniel In Japanese. and English in questions polar Biased measurement. 2013. of Yasutada. scales Sudo, of theory the On 1946. S. Stanley Stevens, the on constraints other and AvoidF , 1999. Roger. Schwarzschild, negative On 2004. Han. Chung-Hye and & intonation, Maribel Romero, questions, Disjunctive 2010. Gool. van Sam & Floris Roelofsen, window a as responses particle Polarity 2015. Farkas. Donka & Floris Roelofsen, 10.1023/a:1008370902407. 15705.94. ora fEprmna scooy erig eoy n Cognition and Memory, Learning, Psychology: Experimental of Journal Colloquium hmsBohae,Foi olfe aieTelr(eds.), Theiler Nadine & Roelofsen Floris Brochhagen, Thomas //doi.org/10.1093/analys/anr050. 785–794. ellipsis In nein. and ja German for patterns Preference assertions: negated to responses https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffu007 . appositives. 525–577. of 32. status information shifting and contribution 9789004183988_009. meaning use-conditional (eds.), in Gärtner Hans-Martin & Gutzmann https://doi.org/10.1126/science.103.2684.677. 677–680. accent. of placement Philosophy and In highlighting. assertions. and questions https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2015.0017. of interpretation the onto analysis. powerful more and better a for suggestion A research: cognitive in xod xodUiest Press. University Oxford Oxford: . 286–295. , usin n nwr nEnglish in answers and Questions 7hAsedmColloquium Amsterdam 17th https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LING.0000033850. 609–658. 27. eaini gapping in Negation h ytxo iec:Sucn,ilns n h hoyof theory the and islands, Sluicing, silence: of syntax The aua agaeSemantics Language Natural https://doi.org/10.1163/ Brill. Leiden: 277–297. , 50 xod xodUiest Press. University Oxford Oxford: . eodepesvs Explorations expressives: Beyond 384–394. , Analysis h au:Mouton. Hague: The . yes/no https://doi.org/ 141–177. 7. lu,Mie,Rp Krifka & Repp Meijer, Claus, Language questions. ora fSemantics of Journal https: 448–456. 71. 0hAmsterdam 20th 1 359–414. 91. Science Linguistics 103. 21. early access 50923 Köln [email protected] Manfred Krifka Unter den Linden 6 [email protected] A. Marlijn Meijer Albertus-Magnus-Platz 10099 Berlin 51 Sophie Repp 50923 Köln [email protected] Puzzling response particles Berry Claus Unter den Linden 6 [email protected] Albertus-Magnus-Platz 10099 Berlin