DOCSLIB.ORG

Contrastive Negation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Contrastive Negation Faculty of Arts University of Helsinki CONTRASTIVE NEGATION CONSTRUCTIONAL VARIATION WITHIN AND ACROSS LANGUAGES Olli O. Silvennoinen DOCTORAL DISSERTATION To be presented for public discussion with the permission of the Faculty of Arts of the University of Helsinki, in Room 107, Athena, on the 18th of October, 2019 at 12 o’clock. Helsinki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–#IBGDNC–<I?>MJNN GDIBPDNOD><GGT .M@QDJPN M@N@<M>C JI >JIOM<NODQ@ I@B<ODJI C<N HJNOGT M@NJMO@? OJ DIOMJNK@>ODQ@GT >JINOMP>O@? @S<HKG@N <I? DON H<DI AJ>PN C<N =@@I JI H@O<GDIBPDNOD>I@B<ODJI@ B 016)11&$76':%'..'06 2C@H<DIH@OCJ?PN@? DIOCDN?DNN@MO<ODJIDN>JMKPNGDIBPDNOD>N D @ OC@LP<GDO<ODQ@<I?LP<IODO<ODQ@ NOP?TJA@G@>OMJID><GGTNOJM@?>JGG@>ODJINJAI<OPM<GGTJ>>PMMDIBO@SON +T<DH C<N=@@IOJNOP?T>JIOM<NODQ@I@B<ODJI<NDO<>OP<GGT<KK@<MNDIG<IBP<B@PN@ M<OC@MOC<IAJ>PNDIBJI<MODAD>D<GGT>M@<O@?D?@<G><N@N '>JHKG@H@IO OC@ >JMKPN GDIBPDNOD>K@MNK@>ODQ@RDOCDIO@M<>ODJI<GGDIBPDNOD>N 'IJOC@MRJM?N ' NOP?TCJR>JIOM<NODQ@I@B<ODJIDNPN@?DI><NP<G>JIQ@MN<ODJIOJ>M@<O@Q<MDJPN NJ>D<GGT M@G@Q<IO <>ODJIN 2C@ OC@JM@OD><G AM<H@RJMF JA OC@ NOP?T DN >JINOMP>ODJI BM<HH<M RCD>C NO<MON RDOC OC@ <NNPHKODJI OC<O G<IBP<B@ >JINDNONJA>JINOMP>ODJIN D @ K<DMDIBNJAAJMH<I?API>ODJIOC<OG<IBP<B@PN@MN G@<MIAMJHPN<B@=TPNDIB?JH<DI B@I@M<G>JBIDODQ@H@>C<IDNHN >>JM?DIB OJ OC@ >JMKPN <I<GTNDN >JIOM<NODQ@ I@B<ODJI A<QJPMN <MBPH@IO<ODQ@ <I? DIO@M<>ODQ@ B@IM@N NP>C <N I@RNK<K@M @?DOJMD<GN <I? >JIQ@MN<ODJI 2C@M@ <M@ BM<?D@IO <I? NJH@ODH@N LPDO@ NP=OG@ API>ODJI<G ?DAA@M@I>@N <HJIB OC@ >JINOMP>ODJI<G N>C@H<N OC<O <M@ PN@? OJ @SKM@NN >JIOM<NODQ@ I@B<ODJI DI #IBGDNC I@RNK<K@M ?DN>JPMN@ 'I >JIQ@MN<ODJI < ?DAA@M@I>@ @H@MB@N =@OR@@I #IBGDNC <I? $DIIDNC >JINOMP>ODJI<G NOM<M@BD@N #IBGDNCA<QJPMN<NTI?@OD>>JH=DI<ODJINJA<I@B<ODQ@<I?<I<AADMH<ODQ@>G<PN@ RCDG@DI$DIIDNC >JINOMP>ODJINOC<O@HKGJT>JMM@>ODQ@>JIEPI>ODJIN<M@PN@? M@G<ODQ@GTAM@LP@IOGT 'I=JOCG<IBP<B@N OC@AJMHNOC<O>JIOM<NODQ@I@B<ODJI O<F@N <M@ <?<KO@? OJ OC@ DIO@M<>ODJI<G >JIO@SO <I? API>ODJI @NK@>D<GGT OJ RC@OC@MOC@>JINOMP>ODJIDNPN@?M@<>ODQ@GTJMIJO 'IOC@G<NO NOP?T JA OC@ ?DNN@MO<ODJI < >JHK<MDNJI JA #PMJK@<I G<IBP<B@N M@Q@<GN ?DAA@M@I>@N @NK@>D<GGT DI OC@ @SO@IO OJ RCD>C >JMM@>ODQ@ >JIEPI>ODJIN <M@ PN@? DI OC@ G<IBP<B@NNOP?D@? 2C@ ?DNN@MO<ODJI @SO@I?N JPM PI?@MNO<I?DIB JA >JIOM<NODQ@ I@B<ODJI 'INO@<?JAH@O<GDIBPDNOD>I@B<ODJI RCD>CC<N?JHDI<O@?KM@QDJPNNOP?D@NJI OC@>JINOMP>ODJIN OC@>@IOM<GLP@NODJINAJMOCDN?DNN@MO<ODJI<M@RC@OC@MOC@ >JIOM<NO DN <??DODQ@ 016 10.; +0.#0& $76 #.51 9'&'0 JM M@NOMD>ODQ@ 016 '8'4; &#;$76 /'4'.;#69''-'0&5 <I? RC@OC@M OC@ >JINOMP>ODJI DN PN@? M@<>ODQ@GTJMIJO DDD TIIVISTELMÄ 2[H[ Q[DOaNFDME< F[NDOO@G@@ FJIOM<NODDQDNO< FD@GOJ< )JIOM<NODDQDN@GG< FD@GGJGG< O<MFJDO@O<<IM<F@IO@DO< EJDNN<TC?DNOTTN<H<<<ND<DIODG<<FPQ<<Q<HTaIO@DI@I E< FD@GO@DI@I JN< @NDH@MFDFND '+ 6B0BB0 8##0 *71/'00# 4#8+56'6670# '+ 5'-1+6'6670# )JIOM<NODDQDN@GG< FD@GGJGG< JI HJID< DGH@I@HDNHPJOJE< @MD FD@GDNN[ E< HTaN N<H<I FD@G@I NDN[GG[ 4[DOaNFDME<NN<ID FTNTI HDCDI FJIOM<NODDQDNO< FD@GOJ< F[TO@O[[I HDO[ @MD HPJOJE< NDGG[ JI E< HDF[ IDD?@I Q[GDNO[Q<DCO@GP<N@GDOO[[ 2POFDIFJIOM<NODDQDNO<FD@GOJ<N@F[TC?@NN[FD@G@NN[– @IBG<IIDNN<–@OO[FD@GO@IQ[GDN@NOD D@HKDOPOFDHPNFJIOM<NODDQDN@NO<FD@GGJNO<JIK<DIJOO<IPOF@FNDOOTE[G<PN@ @NDH@MFF@E[E<@MDOTDN@NODIDDIN<IJOOP<H@O<GDIBQDNODNO[FD@GOJ<@NDH@MFDFND'+ *;8B8##0.1+56#8# 2[H[IOPOFDHPFN@IH@OJ?DI<JIFJMKPNGDIBQDNODDFF<@GD N[CFaDN@NN[HPJ?JNN<O<GG@II@OOPE@I<DOJE@IO@FNOD@IFJFJ@GHD@I<I<GTNJDIOD N@F[G<<?PGGDN@NOD@OO[H[[M[GGDN@NOD 2<MFJDOPFN@I<JIFPQ<O<FJIOM<NODDQDNO< FD@GOJ< N@GG<DN@I< FPDI NDO[ F[TO@O[[I D?@<GDNJDOPE@I @NDH@MFFD@I NDE<<I 2[T?@II[I <I<GTTND< QPJMJQ<DFPOPNGDIBQDNODDF<GG< @GD OPOFDI HTaN HDO@I FJIOM<NODDQDNO< FD@GOJ< F[TO@O[[I <MFDF@NFPNO@GPNN< GPJH<<I @MDG<DND< NJND<<GDN@NOD H@MFDOTFN@GGDND[ OJDHDIOJE< 2POFDHPFN@I O@JM@@OODN@I< QDDO@F@CTFN@I[ F[TO[I FJINOMPFODJFD@GDJKKD< EJIF< HPF<<I FD@GDFJJNOPP HPJ?JI E< H@MFDOTFN@I TCO@@IGDDOOTHDNO[ @GD FJINOMPFODJDNO< EJDO< FD@G@I KPCPE<OJKKDQ<OTG@DNO@IFJBIDODDQDNO@IH@F<IDNHD@IK@MPNO@@GG<FD@G@IF[TOaI KJCE<GO< )JMKPN<I<GTTNDI K@MPNO@@GG< FJIOM<NODDQDI@I FD@GOJ JI OTTKDGGDI@I FD@G@I KDDMM@ <MBPH@IO<ODDQDNDNN< E< QPJMJQ<DFPOO@DNDNN< O@FNODG<E@DNN< FPO@I K[[FDMEJDOPFNDNN< E< <MFDF@NFPNO@GPNN< #IBG<IIDIFD@GDN@NN[ N<IJH<G@COD<DI@DNOJNN< FJIOM<NODDQDN@I FD@GGJI @MD HPJOJE@I Q[GDGG[ JI E<OFPHJH<DND< E< EJNFPN CD@IJQ<M<DND<FDI APIFODJI<<GDND< @MJE< )@NFPNO@GP<DI@DNOJE@I JN<GO< @IBG<IOD E< NPJHD @MJ<Q<O OJDNDNO<<I NDDI[ HDGG<DND< NOM<O@BDJDO< IDD?@I KPCPE<O F[TOO[Q[O FJIOM<NODDQDN@I FD@GGJI DGH<DN@HDN@@I @IBG<IIDNN< FJIOM<NODDQDI@I FD@GOJ DGH<DNO<<I F@NFPNO@GPNN< OTTKDGGDN@NOD FD@GO@DN@I E< HTaIO@DN@I G<PN@@I <NTI?@@OODN@I[ MDII<NOPFN@I< FPIO<<NNPJH@NN<HTaNFJMM@FODDQDNO@IFJIEPIODJD?@I8##0E<-70F[TOOa JI NPCO@@GGDN@I O<Q<GGDNO< )PHH<NN<FDI FD@G@NN[ FJIOM<NODDQDN@I FD@GGJI HPJOJ HJODQJDOPP QPJMJQ<DFPOPNODG<IO@@NO< E< APIFODJNO< @MDOTDN@NOD NDDO[ F[TO@O[[IFa FJINOMPFODJO< M@<FODDQDN@NOD Q<D @D 4[DOaNFDME<I QDDH@DN@NN[ JN<OPOFDHPFN@NN< FD@G@I Q@MO<DGP K<GE<NO<< FD@GO@I[Q[GDND[ @MJE< @MDOTDN@NOD FJMM@FODDQDNO@IFJIEPIFODJD?@IF[TOOa<G<NN< 4[DOaNFDME<IOPGJFN@OG<<E@IO<Q<OFPQ<<FJIOM<NODDQDN@NO<FD@GGJNO< D@HK<< OPOFDHPNO<C<GGDII@@IH@O<GDIBQDNODNTT?@INDE<<IF@NF@DN@FNDIJPN@@FTNTHTN NDDO[ JIFJFJIOM<NOD FJMQ<<Q< '+6B0BB08##0*71/'00# GDN[[Q[ '+8#+0 71/+ 8##0 /;J5 7165+ Q<D M<E<<Q< '+ ,1-# 2B+8B 8##0 #+01#56##0 8++-10.1227+5+0 N@F[NDDO[ JIFJFJINOMPFODJIF[TOOaM@<FODDQDNO<Q<D@D DQ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 2C@TN<TDOO<F@N<QDGG<B@OJM<DN@<>CDG? 'AOC<ODNOMP@ OC@IDOA@@GNGDF@DOC<N O<F@I<OG@<NO<NH<GGOJRIOJM<DN@OCDN?J>OJM<GNOP?@IO 'OC<N=@@IRJI?@MAPG OJ B@O OJ FIJR OC@ <GG@TR<TN <I? NLP<M@N OC@ ><OC@?M<GN <I? OC@ ><A]N =PO <=JQ@ <GG OC@ Q<MDJPN DIO@MGJ>FDIB >JHHPIDOD@N JA K@JKG@ OC<O H<F@ PK HT OJRI 5JM?NRDGGI@Q@MAPGGT@SKM@NNHTBM<ODOP?@AJMOC@OJRIAJGF =PO'RDGG OMT $DMNO<I?AJM@HJNO '<HBM<O@APGOJHTOCM@@@S>@GG@IONPK@MQDNJMN @<>C AMJH<?DAA@M@IOK<MOJAOC@OJRI+<OOD+D@NO<HJ +DII<.<G<I?@M !JGGDI<I? (JPID0JNODG< NHTH<DINPK@MQDNJM +<OOD?@N@MQ@NOC@=DBB@NOOC<IFN -PM ?DN>PNNDJINC<Q@>JIODIP<GGTAJM>@?H@OJNC<MK@IHT<MBPH@ION<I?OJN@@ my research in the context of all the world’s languages, not just the ones that C<KK@I OJ =@ A<HDGD<M OJ H@ OPMIDIB H@ DIOJ < HP>C =@OO@M GDIBPDNODIOC@ KMJ>@NN '<H<GNJBM<O@APGAJMOC@K<OD@I>@RDOCRCD>CC@C<N<GGJR@?H@OJ ADI?HTJRIK<OC<N<M@N@<M>C@M +DII<O<PBCOH@#IBGDNCBM<HH<MDIHT ADMNOT@<M<OPIDQ@MNDOT<I?OCPNDI<R<TDNOC@K@MNJIRCJN@OOCDNKMJE@>OBJDIB <GG OCJN@ T@<MN <BJ 1C@ O<PBCO H@ OC@ >JMKPN GDIBPDNOD> K@MNK@>ODQ@ JI BM<HH<MOC<ODIAJMHNGDO@M<GGT@Q@MTK<B@JAOCDN?DNN@MO<ODJI ,JOJIGTOC<O ' <H<GNJOC<IFAPGOJOC@H@OD>PGJPN=POFDI?R<TDIRCD>CNC@C<NM@HDI?@? H@OC<O@Q@MTO@SONCJPG?=@RMDOO@IRDOCOC@M@<?@MDIHDI? (JPIDC<N=@@I DIQJGQ@?RDOCHTJ=N@NNDJIRDOC>JIOM<NODQ@I@B<ODJINDI>@'RJMF@?JIHT +OC@NDNJIOC@OJKD> &@C<NH<?@NPM@OC<OHTOC@JM@OD><GOCDIFDIBDNIJO HP??G@?=PO>JINDNO@IOJM<OG@<NOHJM@>JINDNO@IOOC<IDORJPG?JOC@MRDN@ C<Q@=@@I 'RJPG?<GNJGDF@OJOC<IFCDHAJMC@GKDIBH@OJN@@OC@=DBKD>OPM@ <I?OJKPOOJRJM?NRC<O'OCDIF'C<Q@<>CD@Q@?RDOCOCDNRJMF '<H<GNJBM<O@APGOJ*D@N@GJOO@I?@MR<G?!CMDNOD<I G=M@>CON 3IDQ@MNDO[O UP )D@G <I? +<MODI &DGK@MO 3IDQ@MNDO] ?@ ,@P>CZO@G AJM =@DIB OC@ KM@ @S<HDI@MNJAHT?DNN@MO<ODJI It is a rare luxury to have one’s dissertation read <I?>JHH@IO@?JI=TORJN>CJG<MNRCJN@RJMF'<?HDM@ '<GNJOC<IF+<MODI &DGK@MOAJM<BM@@DIBOJN@MQ@<NOC@JKKJI@IOJAOCDN?DNN@MO<ODJI $JPMRDN@K@JKG@AMJH?DAA@M@IOK<MONJAOC@<><?@HD>>JHHPIDOTC<Q@ NC<K@? OCDN ?DNN@MO<ODJI NJH@ODH@N K@MC<KN PIRDOODIBGT 0J? +>!JI>CD@ supervised my master’s thesis on contrastive negatioIDI#IBGDNC &DNNPKKJMO <I?@I>JPM<B@H@IOH@<IO<GJOOJH@RC@I'R<N=@BDIIDIBHTRJMFJIOCDN OJKD><I??D?IJOFIJRDA<ITJI@@GN@RJPG?ADI?<ITJAOCDNDIO@M@NODIB (<I -G< XNOH<I R<N OC@ ?DM@>OJM JA &#*1*,% OC@ "J>OJM<G .MJBM<HH@AJM *<IBP<B@1OP?D@N RC@IDOCDM@?H@OJ>JI?P>OHTM@N@<M>CAJMAJPM T@<MN (<I Ola’s sense of optimism and wide contacts have been at least as inspiring <N CDN M@N@<M>C RCD>C C<N KG<T@? < =DB K<MO DI NC<KDIB HT QD@RJARC<O GDIBPDNOD>NDN<=JPO (<<FFJ*@DIJC<N=@@IDIQJGQ@?RDOCOCDN?DNN@MO<ODJIDI H<ITR<TN<GJIBOC@T@<MN DI>GP?DIB<N<M@<?@MJANJH@JAHT?M<AON<I?<N < AM@LP@IOOM<Q@G >JHK<IDJI OJ Q<MDJPN >JIA@M@I>@N 2@MOOP ,@Q<G<DI@I C<N Q =@@I <I <><?@HD> MJG@ HJ?@G NCJRDIB RDN?JH <I? G@<?@MNCDK DI @LP<G H@<NPM@ 2@MOOP<I?(<<FFJC<Q@<GNJ<BM@@?OJ=@OC@A<>PGOTM@KM@N@IO<ODQ@N AJMHT?DNN@MO<ODJI AJMRCD>C'<HBM<O@APG $JM AJPM <I? < C<GA T@<MN HT <><?@HD> CJH@ C<N =@@I OC@ %@I@M<G *DIBPDNOD>NN@>ODJI<OOC@3IDQ@MNDOTJA&@GNDIFD <GJIBRDOCOC@I@DBC=JPMDIB *<IBP<B@2@>CIJGJBTN@>ODJI 'RDNCOJOC<IF,D>FG<N <CMO-M<I@I +<OCD<N !M@POU $M<I>@N><?D%<M=J )<OE<%MPU?@Q< *JOO<(<G<Q< 1@KKJ)DOODG[ ,<DGT< .CDGDKKJQ< #MDF< 1<I?H<I )N@ID< 1C<B<G )<DPN 1DII@H[FD <I? (a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a
Load more

Recommended publications
  • (2012) Perspectival Discourse Referents for Indexicals* Maria
    To appear in Proceedings of SULA 7 (2012) Perspectival discourse referents for indexicals* Maria Bittner Rutgers University 0. Introduction By definition, the reference of an indexical depends on the context of utterance. For ex- ample, what proposition is expressed by saying I am hungry depends on who says this and when. Since Kaplan (1978), context dependence has been analyzed in terms of two parameters: an utterance context, which determines the reference of indexicals, and a formally unrelated assignment function, which determines the reference of anaphors (rep- resented as variables). This STATIC VIEW of indexicals, as pure context dependence, is still widely accepted. With varying details, it is implemented by current theories of indexicali- ty not only in static frameworks, which ignore context change (e.g. Schlenker 2003, Anand and Nevins 2004), but also in the otherwise dynamic framework of DRT. In DRT, context change is only relevant for anaphors, which refer to current values of variables. In contrast, indexicals refer to static contextual anchors (see Kamp 1985, Zeevat 1999). This SEMI-STATIC VIEW reconstructs the traditional indexical-anaphor dichotomy in DRT. An alternative DYNAMIC VIEW of indexicality is implicit in the ‘commonplace ef- fect’ of Stalnaker (1978) and is formally explicated in Bittner (2007, 2011). The basic idea is that indexical reference is a species of discourse reference, just like anaphora. In particular, both varieties of discourse reference involve not only context dependence, but also context change. The act of speaking up focuses attention and thereby makes this very speech event available for discourse reference by indexicals. Mentioning something likewise focuses attention, making the mentioned entity available for subsequent dis- course reference by anaphors.
    [Show full text]
  • Prosodic Focus∗
    Prosodic Focus∗ Michael Wagner March 10, 2020 Abstract This chapter provides an introduction to the phenomenon of prosodic focus, as well as to the theory of Alternative Semantics. Alternative Semantics provides an insightful account of what prosodic focus means, and gives us a notation that can help with better characterizing focus-related phenomena and the terminology used to describe them. We can also translate theoretical ideas about focus and givenness into this notation to facilitate a comparison between frameworks. The discussion will partly be structured by an evaluation of the theories of Givenness, the theory of Relative Givenness, and Unalternative Semantics, but we will cover a range of other ideas and proposals in the process. The chapter concludes with a discussion of phonological issues, and of association with focus. Keywords: focus, givenness, topic, contrast, prominence, intonation, givenness, context, discourse Cite as: Wagner, Michael (2020). Prosodic Focus. In: Gutzmann, D., Matthewson, L., Meier, C., Rullmann, H., and Zimmermann, T. E., editors. The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Semantics. Wiley{Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9781118788516.sem133 ∗Thanks to the audiences at the semantics colloquium in 2014 in Frankfurt, as well as the participants in classes taught at the DGFS Summer School in T¨ubingen2016, at McGill in the fall of 2016, at the Creteling Summer School in Rethymnos in the summer of 2018, and at the Summer School on Intonation and Word Order in Graz in the fall of 2018 (lectures published on OSF: Wagner, 2018). Thanks also for in-depth comments on an earlier version of this chapter by Dan Goodhue and Lisa Matthewson, and two reviewers; I am also indebted to several discussions of focus issues with Aron Hirsch, Bernhard Schwarz, and Ede Zimmermann (who frequently wanted coffee) over the years.
    [Show full text]
  • Against Logical Form
    Against logical form Zolta´n Gendler Szabo´ Conceptions of logical form are stranded between extremes. On one side are those who think the logical form of a sentence has little to do with logic; on the other, those who think it has little to do with the sentence. Most of us would prefer a conception that strikes a balance: logical form that is an objective feature of a sentence and captures its logical character. I will argue that we cannot get what we want. What are these extreme conceptions? In linguistics, logical form is typically con- ceived of as a level of representation where ambiguities have been resolved. According to one highly developed view—Chomsky’s minimalism—logical form is one of the outputs of the derivation of a sentence. The derivation begins with a set of lexical items and after initial mergers it splits into two: on one branch phonological operations are applied without semantic effect; on the other are semantic operations without phono- logical realization. At the end of the first branch is phonological form, the input to the articulatory–perceptual system; and at the end of the second is logical form, the input to the conceptual–intentional system.1 Thus conceived, logical form encompasses all and only information required for interpretation. But semantic and logical information do not fully overlap. The connectives “and” and “but” are surely not synonyms, but the difference in meaning probably does not concern logic. On the other hand, it is of utmost logical importance whether “finitely many” or “equinumerous” are logical constants even though it is hard to see how this information could be essential for their interpretation.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 6 Mirativity and the Bulgarian Evidential System Elena Karagjosova Freie Universität Berlin
    Chapter 6 Mirativity and the Bulgarian evidential system Elena Karagjosova Freie Universität Berlin This paper provides an account of the Bulgarian admirative construction andits place within the Bulgarian evidential system based on (i) new observations on the morphological, temporal, and evidential properties of the admirative, (ii) a criti- cal reexamination of existing approaches to the Bulgarian evidential system, and (iii) insights from a similar mirative construction in Spanish. I argue in particular that admirative sentences are assertions based on evidence of some sort (reporta- tive, inferential, or direct) which are contrasted against the set of beliefs held by the speaker up to the point of receiving the evidence; the speaker’s past beliefs entail a proposition that clashes with the assertion, triggering belief revision and resulting in a sense of surprise. I suggest an analysis of the admirative in terms of a mirative operator that captures the evidential, temporal, aspectual, and modal properties of the construction in a compositional fashion. The analysis suggests that although mirativity and evidentiality can be seen as separate semantic cate- gories, the Bulgarian admirative represents a cross-linguistically relevant case of a mirative extension of evidential verbal forms. Keywords: mirativity, evidentiality, fake past 1 Introduction The Bulgarian evidential system is an ongoing topic of discussion both withre- spect to its interpretation and its morphological buildup. In this paper, I focus on the currently poorly understood admirative construction. The analysis I present is based on largely unacknowledged observations and data involving the mor- phological structure, the syntactic environment, and the evidential meaning of the admirative. Elena Karagjosova.
    [Show full text]
  • Diachrony of Ergative Future
    • THE EVOLUTION OF THE TENSE-ASPECT SYSTEM IN HINDI/URDU: THE STATUS OF THE ERGATIVE ALGNMENT Annie Montaut INALCO, Paris Proceedings of the LFG06 Conference Universität Konstanz Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (Editors) 2006 CSLI Publications http://csli-publications.stanford.edu/ Abstract The paper deals with the diachrony of the past and perfect system in Indo-Aryan with special reference to Hindi/Urdu. Starting from the acknowledgement of ergativity as a typologically atypical feature among the family of Indo-European languages and as specific to the Western group of Indo-Aryan dialects, I first show that such an evolution has been central to the Romance languages too and that non ergative Indo-Aryan languages have not ignored the structure but at a certain point went further along the same historical logic as have Roman languages. I will then propose an analysis of the structure as a predication of localization similar to other stative predications (mainly with “dative” subjects) in Indo-Aryan, supporting this claim by an attempt of etymologic inquiry into the markers for “ergative” case in Indo- Aryan. Introduction When George Grierson, in the full rise of language classification at the turn of the last century, 1 classified the languages of India, he defined for Indo-Aryan an inner circle supposedly closer to the original Aryan stock, characterized by the lack of conjugation in the past. This inner circle included Hindi/Urdu and Eastern Panjabi, which indeed exhibit no personal endings in the definite past, but only gender-number agreement, therefore pertaining more to the adjectival/nominal class for their morphology (calâ, go-MSG “went”, kiyâ, do- MSG “did”, bola, speak-MSG “spoke”).
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:2106.08037V1 [Cs.CL] 15 Jun 2021 Alternative Ways the World Could Be
    The Possible, the Plausible, and the Desirable: Event-Based Modality Detection for Language Processing Valentina Pyatkin∗ Shoval Sadde∗ Aynat Rubinstein Bar Ilan University Bar Ilan University Hebrew University of Jerusalem [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Paul Portner Reut Tsarfaty Georgetown University Bar Ilan University [email protected] [email protected] Abstract (1) a. We presented a paper at ACL’19. Modality is the linguistic ability to describe b. We did not present a paper at ACL’20. events with added information such as how de- sirable, plausible, or feasible they are. Modal- The propositional content p =“present a paper at ity is important for many NLP downstream ACL’X” can be easily verified for sentences (1a)- tasks such as the detection of hedging, uncer- (1b) by looking up the proceedings of the confer- tainty, speculation, and more. Previous studies ence to (dis)prove the existence of the relevant pub- that address modality detection in NLP often p restrict modal expressions to a closed syntac- lication. The same proposition is still referred to tic class, and the modal sense labels are vastly in sentences (2a)–(2d), but now in each one, p is different across different studies, lacking an ac- described from a different perspective: cepted standard. Furthermore, these senses are often analyzed independently of the events that (2) a. We aim to present a paper at ACL’21. they modify. This work builds on the theoreti- b. We want to present a paper at ACL’21. cal foundations of the Georgetown Gradable Modal Expressions (GME) work by Rubin- c.
    [Show full text]
  • Journal of Linguistics the Meanings of Focus
    Journal of Linguistics http://journals.cambridge.org/LIN Additional services for Journal of Linguistics: Email alerts: Click here Subscriptions: Click here Commercial reprints: Click here Terms of use : Click here The meanings of focus: The significance of an interpretation­based category in cross­linguistic analysis DEJAN MATIĆ and DANIEL WEDGWOOD Journal of Linguistics / FirstView Article / January 2006, pp 1 ­ 37 DOI: 10.1017/S0022226712000345, Published online: 31 October 2012 Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0022226712000345 How to cite this article: DEJAN MATIĆ and DANIEL WEDGWOOD The meanings of focus: The significance of an interpretation­based category in cross­linguistic analysis. Journal of Linguistics, Available on CJO 2012 doi:10.1017/S0022226712000345 Request Permissions : Click here Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/LIN, IP address: 192.87.79.51 on 13 Nov 2012 J. Linguistics, Page 1 of 37. f Cambridge University Press 2012 doi:10.1017/S0022226712000345 The meanings of focus: The significance of an interpretation-based category in cross-linguistic analysis1 DEJAN MATIC´ Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen DANIEL WEDGWOOD (Received 16 March 2011; revised 23 August 2012) Focus is regularly treated as a cross-linguistically stable category that is merely manifested by different structural means in different languages, such that a common focus feature may be realised through, for example, a morpheme in one language and syntactic movement in another. We demonstrate this conception of focus to be unsustainable on both theoretical and empirical grounds, invoking fundamental argumentation regarding the notions of focus and linguistic category, alongside data from a wide range of languages.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1 Negation in a Cross-Linguistic Perspective
    Chapter 1 Negation in a cross-linguistic perspective 0. Chapter summary This chapter introduces the empirical scope of our study on the expression and interpretation of negation in natural language. We start with some background notions on negation in logic and language, and continue with a discussion of more linguistic issues concerning negation at the syntax-semantics interface. We zoom in on cross- linguistic variation, both in a synchronic perspective (typology) and in a diachronic perspective (language change). Besides expressions of propositional negation, this book analyzes the form and interpretation of indefinites in the scope of negation. This raises the issue of negative polarity and its relation to negative concord. We present the main facts, criteria, and proposals developed in the literature on this topic. The chapter closes with an overview of the book. We use Optimality Theory to account for the syntax and semantics of negation in a cross-linguistic perspective. This theoretical framework is introduced in Chapter 2. 1 Negation in logic and language The main aim of this book is to provide an account of the patterns of negation we find in natural language. The expression and interpretation of negation in natural language has long fascinated philosophers, logicians, and linguists. Horn’s (1989) Natural history of negation opens with the following statement: “All human systems of communication contain a representation of negation. No animal communication system includes negative utterances, and consequently, none possesses a means for assigning truth value, for lying, for irony, or for coping with false or contradictory statements.” A bit further on the first page, Horn states: “Despite the simplicity of the one-place connective of propositional logic ( ¬p is true if and only if p is not true) and of the laws of inference in which it participate (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Grammar for Academic Writing
    GRAMMAR FOR ACADEMIC WRITING Tony Lynch and Kenneth Anderson (revised & updated by Anthony Elloway) © 2013 English Language Teaching Centre University of Edinburgh GRAMMAR FOR ACADEMIC WRITING Contents Unit 1 PACKAGING INFORMATION 1 Punctuation 1 Grammatical construction of the sentence 2 Types of clause 3 Grammar: rules and resources 4 Ways of packaging information in sentences 5 Linking markers 6 Relative clauses 8 Paragraphing 9 Extended Writing Task (Task 1.13 or 1.14) 11 Study Notes on Unit 12 Unit 2 INFORMATION SEQUENCE: Describing 16 Ordering the information 16 Describing a system 20 Describing procedures 21 A general procedure 22 Describing causal relationships 22 Extended Writing Task (Task 2.7 or 2.8 or 2.9 or 2.11) 24 Study Notes on Unit 25 Unit 3 INDIRECTNESS: Making requests 27 Written requests 28 Would 30 The language of requests 33 Expressing a problem 34 Extended Writing Task (Task 3.11 or 3.12) 35 Study Notes on Unit 36 Unit 4 THE FUTURE: Predicting and proposing 40 Verb forms 40 Will and Going to in speech and writing 43 Verbs of intention 44 Non-verb forms 45 Extended Writing Task (Task 4.10 or 4.11) 46 Study Notes on Unit 47 ii GRAMMAR FOR ACADEMIC WRITING Unit 5 THE PAST: Reporting 49 Past versus Present 50 Past versus Present Perfect 51 Past versus Past Perfect 54 Reported speech 56 Extended Writing Task (Task 5.11 or 5.12) 59 Study Notes on Unit 60 Unit 6 BEING CONCISE: Using nouns and adverbs 64 Packaging ideas: clauses and noun phrases 65 Compressing noun phrases 68 ‘Summarising’ nouns 71 Extended Writing Task (Task 6.13) 73 Study Notes on Unit 74 Unit 7 SPECULATING: Conditionals and modals 77 Drawing conclusions 77 Modal verbs 78 Would 79 Alternative conditionals 80 Speculating about the past 81 Would have 83 Making recommendations 84 Extended Writing Task (Task 7.13) 86 Study Notes on Unit 87 iii GRAMMAR FOR ACADEMIC WRITING Introduction Grammar for Academic Writing provides a selective overview of the key areas of English grammar that you need to master, in order to express yourself correctly and appropriately in academic writing.
    [Show full text]
  • The Syntax of Answers to Negative Yes/No-Questions in English Anders Holmberg Newcastle University
    The syntax of answers to negative yes/no-questions in English Anders Holmberg Newcastle University 1. Introduction This paper will argue that answers to polar questions or yes/no-questions (YNQs) in English are elliptical expressions with basically the structure (1), where IP is identical to the LF of the IP of the question, containing a polarity variable with two possible values, affirmative or negative, which is assigned a value by the focused polarity expression. (1) yes/no Foc [IP ...x... ] The crucial data come from answers to negative questions. English turns out to have a fairly complicated system, with variation depending on which negation is used. The meaning of the answer yes in (2) is straightforward, affirming that John is coming. (2) Q(uestion): Isn’t John coming, too? A(nswer): Yes. (‘John is coming.’) In (3) (for speakers who accept this question as well formed), 1 the meaning of yes alone is indeterminate, and it is therefore not a felicitous answer in this context. The longer version is fine, affirming that John is coming. (3) Q: Isn’t John coming, either? A: a. #Yes. b. Yes, he is. In (4), there is variation regarding the interpretation of yes. Depending on the context it can be a confirmation of the negation in the question, meaning ‘John is not coming’. In other contexts it will be an infelicitous answer, as in (3). (4) Q: Is John not coming? A: a. Yes. (‘John is not coming.’) b. #Yes. In all three cases the (bare) answer no is unambiguous, meaning that John is not coming.
    [Show full text]
  • TWO FORMS of "BE" in MALAYALAM1 Tara Mohanan and K.P
    TWO FORMS OF "BE" IN MALAYALAM1 Tara Mohanan and K.P. Mohanan National University of Singapore 1. INTRODUCTION Malayalam has two verbs, uNTE and aaNE, recognized in the literature as copulas (Asher 1968, Variar 1979, Asher and Kumari 1997, among others). There is among speakers of Malayalam a clear, intuitively perceived meaning difference between the verbs. One strong intuition is that uNTE and aaNE correspond to the English verbs "have" and "be"; another is that they should be viewed as the "existential" and "equative" copulas respectively.2 However, in a large number of contexts, these verbs appear to be interchangeable. This has thwarted the efforts of a clear characterization of the meanings of the two verbs. In this paper, we will explore a variety of syntactic and semantic environments that shed light on the differences between the constructions with aaNE and uNTE. On the basis of the asymmetries we lay out, we will re-affirm the intuition that aaNE and uNTE are indeed equative and existential copulas respectively, with aaNE signaling the meaning of “x is an element/subset of y" and uNTE signaling the meaning of existence of an abstract or concrete entity in the fields of location or possession. We will show that when aaNE is interchangable with uNTE in existential clauses, its function is that of a cleft marker, with the existential meaning expressed independently by the case markers on the nouns. Central to our exploration of the two copulas is the discovery of four types of existential clauses in Malayalam, namely: Neutral: with the existential verb uNTE.
    [Show full text]
  • MR Harley Miyagawa Syntax of Ditransitives
    Syntax of Ditransitives Heidi Harley and Shigeru Miyagawa (in press, Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics) July 2016 Summary Keywords 1. Structure for the Two Internal Arguments 2. Underlying Order 3. Meaning Differences 4. Case, Clitic 5. The Structure of Ditransitives 6. Nominalization Asymmetries 6.1. A Morphological Account of the Nominalization Asymmetry 6.2. –kata Nominalization in Japanese and Myer’s Generalization 6.3 Selectional Accounts of the Nominalization Asymmetry 6.4 Applicative vs Small Clause Approaches to the DOC. 7. Constraints on the Dative/DOC Alternation 7.1 Morphological Constraints 7.2 Lexical Semantic Constraints 7.3 Information-Structural and Sentential Prosody Constraints 8. Overview and Prospects Further Reading References Summary Ditransitive predicates select for two internal arguments, and hence minimally entail the participation of three entities in the event described by the verb. Canonical ditranstive verbs include give, show and teach; in each case, the verb requires an Agent (a giver, shower or teacher, respectively), a Theme (the thing given, shown or taught) and a Goal (the recipient, viewer, or student). The property of requiring two internal arguments makes ditransitive verbs syntactically unique. Selection in generative grammar is often modelled as syntactic sisterhood, so ditranstive verbs immediately raise the question of whether a verb might have two sisters, requiring a ternary-branching structure, or whether one of the two internal arguments is not in a sisterhood relation with the verb. Another important property of English ditransitive constructions is the two syntactic structures associated with them. In the so-called “Double Object Construction”, or DOC, the Goal and Theme both are simple NPs and appear following the verb in the order V-Goal-Theme.
    [Show full text]