DOCSLIB.ORG

The Empirical Base of Linguistics: Grammaticality Judgments and Linguistic Methodology

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Empirical Base of Linguistics: Grammaticality Judgments and Linguistic Methodology UCLA UCLA Previously Published Works Title The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/05b2s4wg ISBN 978-3946234043 Author Schütze, Carson T Publication Date 2016-02-01 DOI 10.17169/langsci.b89.101 Data Availability The data associated with this publication are managed by: Language Science Press, Berlin Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California The empirical base of linguistics Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology Carson T. Schütze language Classics in Linguistics 2 science press Classics in Linguistics Chief Editors: Martin Haspelmath, Stefan Müller In this series: 1. Lehmann, Christian. Thoughts on grammaticalization 2. Schütze, Carson T. The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology 3. Bickerton, Derek. Roots of language ISSN: 2366-374X The empirical base of linguistics Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology Carson T. Schütze language science press Carson T. Schütze. 2019. The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology (Classics in Linguistics 2). Berlin: Language Science Press. This title can be downloaded at: http://langsci-press.org/catalog/book/89 © 2019, Carson T. Schütze Published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Licence (CC BY 4.0): http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ISBN: 978-3-946234-02-9 (Digital) 978-3-946234-03-6 (Hardcover) 978-3-946234-04-3 (Softcover) 978-1-523743-32-2 (Softcover US) ISSN: 2366-374X DOI:10.5281/zenodo.3362734 Cover and concept of design: Ulrike Harbort Typesetting: Felix Kopecky, Sebastian Nordhoff, Carson T. Schütze Fonts: Linux Libertine, Arimo, DejaVu Sans Mono Typesetting software:Ǝ X LATEX Language Science Press Habelschwerdter Allee 45 14195 Berlin, Germany langsci-press.org Storage and cataloguing done by FU Berlin Language Science Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party Internet websites referred to in this publication, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate. For my mother, Dorly Schütze, and the memory of my father, Ted Schütze It is simultaneously the greatest virtue and failing of linguistic theory that sequence acceptability judgments are used as the basic data. (Bever 1970b) Contents Preface (2016) xi Preface (1996) xvii Acknowledgments (1996) xix 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Goals ................................. 1 1.2 Approach ............................... 7 1.3 Motivation: Whither Linguistics? ................. 10 1.4 A Working Hypothesis ....................... 13 1.5 Scope and Organization ....................... 15 2 Definitions and Historical Background 19 2.1 Introduction ............................. 19 2.2 A Short History of Grammaticality ................ 20 2.3 The Use of Judgment Data in Linguistic Theory .......... 36 2.3.1 Introduction ......................... 36 2.3.2 The Dangers of Unsystematic Data Collection ...... 37 2.3.3 A Case Study in the Use of Subtle Judgments ...... 41 2.3.4 The Interpretation of the Annotations and Degrees of Bad- ness ............................. 44 2.4 Introspection, Intuition, and Judgment .............. 48 2.5 Conclusion .............................. 52 3 Judging Grammaticality 55 3.1 Introduction ............................. 55 3.2 Tasks that Access Grammaticality ................. 56 3.3 The Nature of Graded Judgments .................. 62 3.3.1 Is Grammaticality Dichotomous? ............. 62 3.3.2 Experiments on Chomsky’s Three Levels of Deviance .. 70 3.3.3 Other Experiments ..................... 74 Contents 3.3.4 Ratings, Rankings, and Consistency ............ 77 3.4 The Judgment Process ........................ 81 3.5 The Interpretation of Judgments with Respect to Competence . 88 3.6 Conclusion .............................. 96 4 Subject-Related Factors in Grammaticality Judgments 97 4.1 Introduction ............................. 97 4.2 Individual Differences: Three Representative Studies ....... 98 4.3 Organismic Factors ......................... 106 4.3.1 Field Dependence ...................... 106 4.3.2 Handedness ......................... 107 4.3.3 Other Organismic Factors ................. 109 4.4 Experiential Factors ......................... 112 4.4.1 Linguistic Training ..................... 112 4.4.2 Literacy and Education ................... 120 4.4.3 Other Experiential Factors ................. 124 4.5 Conclusion .............................. 126 5 Task-Related Factors in Grammaticality Judgments 127 5.1 Introduction ............................. 127 5.2 Procedural Factors .......................... 129 5.2.1 Instructions ......................... 129 5.2.2 Order of Presentation ................... 132 5.2.3 Repetition .......................... 133 5.2.4 Mental State ......................... 138 5.2.5 Judgment Strategy ..................... 142 5.2.6 Modality and Register ................... 144 5.2.7 Speed of Judgment ..................... 146 5.3 Stimulus Factors ........................... 148 5.3.1 Context ........................... 148 5.3.2 Meaning ........................... 157 5.3.3 Parsability .......................... 160 5.3.4 Frequency .......................... 161 5.3.5 Lexical Content ....................... 162 5.3.6 Morphology and Spelling ................. 164 5.3.7 Rhetorical Structure .................... 164 5.4 Conclusion .............................. 165 viii Contents 6 Theoretical and Methodological Implications 167 6.1 Introduction ............................. 167 6.2 Modeling Grammaticality Judgments ............... 168 6.2.1 Previous Work ....................... 168 6.2.2 The Outlines of a Preliminary Model ........... 169 6.2.3 Applications of the Model ................. 177 6.3 Methodological Proposals ...................... 180 6.3.1 Materials .......................... 180 6.3.2 Procedure .......................... 183 6.3.3 Analysis and Interpretation of Results .......... 191 6.4 Conclusion .............................. 197 7 Looking Back and Looking Ahead 199 7.1 Introduction ............................. 199 7.2 Directions for Further Research .................. 201 7.3 The Future in Linguistics ...................... 206 References 209 Indexes 229 Name Index ................................. 229 Subject Index ................................ 235 ix Preface (2016) Since the original version of this book (University of Chicago Press, 1996) went out of print in the 2000s, I have continued to receive inquiries from people asking how they can obtain a copy. I am therefore thrilled that Language Science Press has offered to make the title available again, as part of their Classics in Linguistics series. I would like to thank series editors Stefan Müller and Martin Haspelmath, as well as Sebastian Nordhoff and Felix Kopecky, for their help in making this happen. The content of this new printing is identical to the first printing, withthe following exceptions: • I have altered the wording in a few places where I found it insufficiently clear or terminologically outdated; • my uses of the term informant(s) have been replaced with consultant(s) or speaker(s), in keeping with current practice (of course, the former term still appears in some quoted passages); • I have updated the reference information for a couple of works that had not been published at the time of the original printing, particularly Cowart (1997); • the original index has been split into name and subject indexes, and both are now more comprehensive. In terms of presentation, the following things have changed: • the format of citations and references has been adapted to LangSci house style, as have other minor typographical choices; • full given names have been added to references whenever available; • since the text has been freshly typeset, the page numbers do not match those of the original printing; however, the (sub)section numbers are un- changed: I suggest using those if it is necessary to specify a location within a chapter. Example numbers are also unchanged. Preface (2016) Importantly, I have not attempted to update the content in light of subsequent relevant research, since this would undoubtedly have compelled me to try to write a whole new book. Of course, linguistics and psycholinguistics have chang- ed a great deal in the 20 years since I completed the original manuscript; e.g., “theoretical” linguistics has notably become more “experimental.” Also, some of my own views on the issues have evolved over those two decades. There are passages in the book that I would have omitted or altered, if I had allowed myself to make any substantive revisions. Instead, I have chosen to restrict all follow- up discussion to this preface. In what follows I try to point readers to works that should allow them to “get up to speed” on intervening developments. For collections that are comprised mainly of papers on topics that are impor- tant in the book, see McNair et al. (1996), Penke & Rosenbach (2004), Kepser & Reis (2005), Borsley (2005), Featherston (2007) and replies in the same journal issue, Featherston & Sternefeld (2007), Featherston & Winkler (2009), and Win- kler & Featherston (2009). My more recent views can be found in the following surveys: Schütze (2006; 2011) and Schütze & Sprouse (2013). There have been (at least) four major developments involving the empirical base of linguistics that anyone interested in the topic
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Linguistic Competence
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Transactions of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences and Affiliated Societies Nebraska Academy of Sciences 1983 Linguistic Competence John Tienson University of Nebraska-Lincoln Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/tnas Part of the Life Sciences Commons Tienson, John, "Linguistic Competence" (1983). Transactions of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences and Affiliated Societies. 259. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/tnas/259 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Nebraska Academy of Sciences at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Transactions of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences and Affiliated Societiesy b an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. 1983. Transactions of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences, XI:99-104. LINGUISTIC COMPETENCE John Tienson Department of Philosophy University of Nebraska-Lincoln Lincoln, Nebraska 68588-0321 The notion of linguistic competence as a cognitive system that essential to the notion. This will make clear that Chomsky produces knowledge not antecedently present in the mind of the sub­ should not have said that a theory of competence is an ideali­ ject, e.g., knowledge of grammatical relations in response to certain zation, and that there is no reason to say that a speaker knows stimuli is an important contribution to philosophical understanding of linguistics, and of cognitive psychology in general. This notion has not the rules of the grammar. been as well received as it should have been, in part because of certain false things that have been said about it.
    [Show full text]
  • Veridicality and Utterance Meaning
    2011 Fifth IEEE International Conference on Semantic Computing Veridicality and utterance understanding Marie-Catherine de Marneffe, Christopher D. Manning and Christopher Potts Linguistics Department Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305 {mcdm,manning,cgpotts}@stanford.edu Abstract—Natural language understanding depends heavily on making the requisite inferences. The inherent uncertainty of assessing veridicality – whether the speaker intends to convey that pragmatic inference suggests to us that veridicality judgments events mentioned are actual, non-actual, or uncertain. However, are not always categorical, and thus are better modeled as this property is little used in relation and event extraction systems, and the work that has been done has generally assumed distributions. We therefore treat veridicality as a distribution- that it can be captured by lexical semantic properties. Here, prediction task. We trained a maximum entropy classifier on we show that context and world knowledge play a significant our annotations to assign event veridicality distributions. Our role in shaping veridicality. We extend the FactBank corpus, features include not only lexical items like hedges, modals, which contains semantically driven veridicality annotations, with and negations, but also structural features and approximations pragmatically informed ones. Our annotations are more complex than the lexical assumption predicts but systematic enough to of world knowledge. The resulting model yields insights into be included in computational work on textual understanding. the complex pragmatic factors that shape readers’ veridicality They also indicate that veridicality judgments are not always judgments. categorical, and should therefore be modeled as distributions. We build a classifier to automatically assign event veridicality II. CORPUS ANNOTATION distributions based on our new annotations.
    [Show full text]
  • CAS LX 522 Syntax I
    It is likely… CAS LX 522 IP This satisfies the EPP in Syntax I both clauses. The main DPj I′ clause has Mary in SpecIP. Mary The embedded clause has Vi+I VP is the trace in SpecIP. V AP Week 14b. PRO and control ti This specific instance of A- A IP movement, where we move a likely subject from an embedded DP I′ clause to a higher clause is tj generally called subject raising. I VP to leave Reluctance to leave Reluctance to leave Now, consider: Reluctant has two θ-roles to assign. Mary is reluctant to leave. One to the one feeling the reluctance (Experiencer) One to the proposition about which the reluctance holds (Proposition) This looks very similar to Mary is likely to leave. Can we draw the same kind of tree for it? Leave has one θ-role to assign. To the one doing the leaving (Agent). How many θ-roles does reluctant assign? In Mary is reluctant to leave, what θ-role does Mary get? IP Reluctance to leave Reluctance… DPi I′ Mary Vj+I VP In Mary is reluctant to leave, is V AP Mary is doing the leaving, gets Agent t Mary is reluctant to leave. j t from leave. i A′ Reluctant assigns its θ- Mary is showing the reluctance, gets θ roles within AP as A θ IP Experiencer from reluctant. required, Mary moves reluctant up to SpecIP in the main I′ clause by Spellout. ? And we have a problem: I vP But what gets the θ-role to Mary appears to be getting two θ-roles, from leave, and what v′ in violation of the θ-criterion.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Irrelevance of Transformational Grammar to Second Language Pedagogy
    ON THE IRRELEVANCE OF TRANSFORMATIONAL GRAMMAR TO SECOND LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY John T. Lamendella The University of Michigan Many scholars view transformational grammar as an attempt to represent the structure of linguistic knowledge in the mind and seek to apply transformational descriptions of languages to the de- velopment of second language teaching materials. It will be claimed in this paper that it is a mistake to look to transformational gram- mar or any other theory of linguistic description to provide the theoretical basis for either second language pedagogy or a theory of language acquisition. One may well wish to describe the ab- stract or logical structure of a language by constructing a trans- formational grammar which generates the set of sentences identi- fied with that language. However, this attempt should not be con- fused with an attempt to understand the cognitive structures and processes involved in knowing or using a language. It is a cogni- tive theory of language within the field of psycholinguistics rather than a theory of linguistic description which should underlie lan- guage teaching materials. A great deal of effort has been expended in the attempt to demonstrate the potential contributions of the field of descriptive linguistics to the teaching of second languages and, since the theory of transformational grammar has become the dominant theory in the field of linguistics, it is not surprising that applied linguists have sought to apply transformational grammar to gain new in- sights into the teaching of second languages. It will be claimed in this paper that it is a mistake to look to transformational grammar or any other theory of linguistic description to provide the theoretical basis for either second language pedagogy or a theory of language acquisition.
    [Show full text]
  • Preprint Corpus Analysis in Forensic Linguistics
    Nini, A. (2020). Corpus analysis in forensic linguistics. In Carol A. Chapelle (ed), The Concise Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, 313-320, Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell Corpus Analysis in Forensic Linguistics Andrea Nini Abstract This entry is an overview of the applications of corpus linguistics to forensic linguistics, in particular to the analysis of language as evidence. Three main areas are described, following the influence that corpus linguistics has had on them in recent times: the analysis of texts of disputed authorship, the provision of evidence in cases of trademark disputes, and the analysis of disputed meanings in criminal or civil cases. In all of these areas considerable advances have been made that revolve around the use of corpus data, for example, to study forensically realistic corpora for authorship analysis, or to provide naturally occurring evidence in cases of trademark disputes or determination of meaning. Using examples from real-life cases, the entry explains how corpus analysis is therefore gradually establishing itself as the norm for solving certain forensic problems and how it is becoming the main methodological approach for forensic linguistics. Keywords Authorship Analysis; Idiolect; Language as Evidence; Ordinary Meaning; Trademark This entry focuses on the use of corpus linguistics methods and techniques for the analysis of forensic data. “Forensic linguistics” is a very general term that broadly refers to two areas of investigation: the analysis of the language of the law and the analysis of language evidence in criminal or civil cases. The former, which often takes advantage of corpus methods, includes areas as wide as the study of the language of the judicial process and courtroom interaction (e.g., Tkačuková, 2015), the study of written legal documents (e.g., Finegan, 2010), and the investigation of interactions in police interviews (e.g., Carter, 2011).
    [Show full text]
  • The Linguistics Wars Pdf, Epub, Ebook
    THE LINGUISTICS WARS PDF, EPUB, EBOOK Randy Allen Harris | 368 pages | 09 Mar 1995 | Oxford University Press Inc | 9780195098341 | English | New York, United States The Linguistics Wars PDF Book As a non-linguist, this book also served as a serviceable introduction to some of the field's basic ideas, and it was interesting to read about Chomsky in his original role. Javascript is not enabled in your browser. It has also been noted that the complex adaptive system view of language is highly compatible with those strands of language evolution research that focus on the cumulative cultural evolution of language see e. We can begin with very simple notions that depend on bodily orientation: front-back, before-after, left-right, etc. The book is certainly not suitable for people outside the field because it involves too much linguistic theory, so in a sense the book fails to do what it wants to do. Protolanguage and mechanisms of meaning construal in interaction. It''s just a matter of fact. Spivey, M. The major research project was aimed at overcoming this tension by showing that the apparent complexity and variety of language was only superficial, the result of minor changes in a fixed and invariant system. Since the mid-twentieth century, the field of linguistics has been a tumultuous discipline. Jul 30, Tom rated it it was ok. Leaving the myth behind: a reply to Adger The shape of the human language-ready brain. However, Christiansen and Chater , p. Oxford: OUP. Wang Taiwan: Pyramid Press , — It should be stressed that these matters are presented in an entirely different light by intellectual opinion, which has its own tasks and commitments.
    [Show full text]
  • Greek and Latin Roots, Prefixes, and Suffixes
    GREEK AND LATIN ROOTS, PREFIXES, AND SUFFIXES This is a resource pack that I put together for myself to teach roots, prefixes, and suffixes as part of a separate vocabulary class (short weekly sessions). It is a combination of helpful resources that I have found on the web as well as some tips of my own (such as the simple lesson plan). Lesson Plan Ideas ........................................................................................................... 3 Simple Lesson Plan for Word Study: ........................................................................... 3 Lesson Plan Idea 2 ...................................................................................................... 3 Background Information .................................................................................................. 5 Why Study Word Roots, Prefixes, and Suffixes? ......................................................... 6 Latin and Greek Word Elements .............................................................................. 6 Latin Roots, Prefixes, and Suffixes .......................................................................... 6 Root, Prefix, and Suffix Lists ........................................................................................... 8 List 1: MEGA root list ................................................................................................... 9 List 2: Roots, Prefixes, and Suffixes .......................................................................... 32 List 3: Prefix List ......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Where Did Pragmatics Comme From
    n°19, Juin 2003, pp. 7-12 Where did pragmatics come from ? Abstract The present study is concerned with the early beginnings of pragmatics. It investigated the linguistic and philosophical backgrounds of this field. It was argued that pragmatics grew within philosophy and its emergence as an independent field Dr. A. HAMAD was, for some time, delayed by the influence of some linguistic Associate Prof. of Linguistics theories especially the generative-transformational theory. An-Najah Nat. University Finally, it was pointed out that this field was freed from the Nablus, Palestine influence of this theory. lthough many scholars, philosophers and A linguists, have been studying various types of pragmatic topics such as indexicality, implicatures, illocutionary force, speech acts, presuppositions, etc. For hundreds of years, pragmatics as a field has not emerged until recently. Not only that, but it has been denied the status of a component of grammar besides the phonological, syntactic, and semantic components which altogether constitute the core components of human language grammar. Critics have questioned the nature and the domain of this field; that is the theoretical as well as the practical status of the field in general. It seems that the scholars’ attitude toward pragmatics has been the result of radical theorizations in the main trend of theoretical linguistics motivated primarily by the structural and ملخص generative-transformational linguistic theories. The تهدف هذه الدراسة للتعرف على present study will attempt to explore briefly the البدايات المبكرة لعلم المقا مية. بحثت background of this field, its development, and the الدراسة في الخلفيات اللغوية والفلسفية reasons that stood behind the delay of its emergence التي تقف وراء هذا العلم.ثم حاولت .and institutionalization الدراسة التدليل على أن علم المقامية Philosophy and the Study of Language قد نشأ في حضن الفلسفة وأن بعض النضريات اللغوية عملت ولبعض In order to have a better understanding of the الوقت على تأخير ظهور هذا العلم.
    [Show full text]
  • Language Structure: Phrases “Productivity” a Property of Language • Definition – Language Is an Open System
    Language Structure: Phrases “Productivity” a property of Language • Definition – Language is an open system. We can produce potentially an infinite number of different messages by combining elements differently. • Example – Words into phrases. An Example of Productivity • Human language is a communication system that bears some similarities to other animal communication systems, but is also characterized by certain unique features. (24 words) • I think that human language is a communication system that bears some similarities to other animal communication systems, but is also characterized by certain unique features, which are fascinating in and of themselves. (33 words) • I have always thought, and I have spent many years verifying, that human language is a communication system that bears some similarities to other animal communication systems, but is also characterized by certain unique features, which are fascinating in and of themselves. (42 words) • Although mainstream some people might not agree with me, I have always thought… Creating Infinite Messages • Discrete elements – Words, Phrases • Selection – Ease, Meaning, Identity • Combination – Rules of organization Models of Word reCombination 1. Word chains (Markov model) Phrase-level meaning is derived from understanding each word as it is presented in the context of immediately adjacent words. 2. Hierarchical model There are long-distant dependencies between words in a phrase, and these inform the meaning of the entire phrase. Markov Model Rule: Select and concatenate (according to meaning and what types of words should occur next to each other). bites bites bites Man over over over jumps jumps jumps house house house Markov Model • Assumption −Only adjacent words are meaningfully (and lawfully) related.
    [Show full text]
  • CONTENT Unit I 2-18 Communication and Language INTRODUCTION to LINGUISTICS Major Linguists and Their Contribution
    1 CONTENT Unit I 2-18 Communication and Language INTRODUCTION TO LINGUISTICS Major Linguists and their Contribution Unit II 19-27 Phonology of English and Phonetics Mechanism of Speech Production Organs of speech The Respiratory System The Phonatory System The Articulatory System The Air-stream Mechanism Unit III 29-43 Phonology of English and Phonetics (Continued) Description and Classification of Vowels and Consonants Description of Vowel Sounds Description of Pure Vowels in English Description of Dipthongs or Glides in English Occurrence of Vowel Sounds in English Description of Consonant Sounds Unit IV 44-56 STRESS AND INTONATION Word Accent/Stress Intonation Unit V 57-70 SOCIOLINUISTICS Definitions of Sociolinguistics Language Variation or Varieties of Language Dialects Sociolect Idiolect Register Language Contact: Pidgin and Creole 2 UNIT-I INTRODUCTION TO LINGUISTICS 1.0 1.1 Linguistics/lɪŋˈɡwɪstɪks/ refers to the scientific study of language and its structure, including the study of grammar, syntax, and phonetics. Specific branches of linguistics include sociolinguistics, dialectology, psycholinguistics, computational linguistics, comparative linguistics, and structural linguistics. WHAT IS LINGUISTICS? Linguistics is defined as the scientific study of language.It is the systematic study of the elements of language and the principles governing their combination and organization. Linguistics provides for a rigorous experimentation with the elements or aspects of language that are actually in use by the speech community. It is based on observation and the data collected thereby from the users of the language, a scientific analysis is made by the investigator and at the end of it he comes out with a satisfactory explanation relating to his field of study.
    [Show full text]
  • Sentential Negation and Negative Concord
    Sentential Negation and Negative Concord Published by LOT phone: +31.30.2536006 Trans 10 fax: +31.30.2536000 3512 JK Utrecht email: [email protected] The Netherlands http://wwwlot.let.uu.nl/ Cover illustration: Kasimir Malevitch: Black Square. State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg, Russia. ISBN 90-76864-68-3 NUR 632 Copyright © 2004 by Hedde Zeijlstra. All rights reserved. Sentential Negation and Negative Concord ACADEMISCH PROEFSCHRIFT ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam op gezag van de Rector Magnificus Prof. Mr P.F. van der Heijden ten overstaan van een door het College voor Promoties ingestelde commissie, in het openbaar te verdedigen in de Aula der Universiteit op woensdag 15 december 2004, te 10:00 uur door HEDZER HUGO ZEIJLSTRA geboren te Rotterdam Promotiecommissie: Promotores: Prof. Dr H.J. Bennis Prof. Dr J.A.G. Groenendijk Copromotor: Dr J.B. den Besten Leden: Dr L.C.J. Barbiers (Meertens Instituut, Amsterdam) Dr P.J.E. Dekker Prof. Dr A.C.J. Hulk Prof. Dr A. von Stechow (Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen) Prof. Dr F.P. Weerman Faculteit der Geesteswetenschappen Voor Petra Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................ I ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................V 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................1 1.1 FOUR ISSUES IN THE STUDY OF NEGATION.......................................................1
    [Show full text]
  • Like, Hedging and Mirativity. a Unified Account
    Like, hedging and mirativity. A unified account. Abstract (4) Never thought I would say this, but Lil’ Wayne, is like. smart. We draw a connection between ‘hedging’ (5) My friend I used to hang out with is like use of the discourse particle like in Amer- . rich now. ican English and its use as a mirative marker of surprise. We propose that both (6) Whoa! I like . totally won again! uses of like widen the size of a pragmati- cally restricted set – a pragmatic halo vs. a In (4), the speaker is signaling that they did not doxastic state. We thus derive hedging and expect to discover that Lil Wayne is smart; in (5) surprise effects in a unified way, outlining the speaker is surprised to learn that their former an underlying link between the semantics friend is now rich; and in (6) the speaker is sur- of like and the one of other mirative mark- prised by the fact that they won again. ers cross-linguistically. After presenting several diagnostics that point to a genuine empirical difference between these 1 Introduction uses, we argue that they do in fact share a core grammatical function: both trigger the expansion Mirative expressions, which mark surprising in- of a pragmatically restricted set: the pragmatic formation (DeLancey 1997), are often expressed halo of an expression for the hedging variant; and through linguistic markers that are also used to en- the doxastic state of the speaker for the mirative code other, seemingly unrelated meanings – e.g., use. We derive hedging and mirativity as effects evidential markers that mark lack of direct evi- of the particular type of object to which like ap- dence (Turkish: Slobin and Aksu 1982; Peterson plies.
    [Show full text]