SemPrag03.Progr.pdf - Institut für Linguistik/Germanistik - Universität ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. McTaggart, J.E. 1908. ‘The unreality of time’. Mind 17. Reprinted in J.E. McTaggart, 1934, Philosophical Studies, London: E. Arnold, pp. 110-131. Parsons, J. 2002. ‘A-theory for B-theorists’. The Philosophical Quarterly 52. 1-20. Parsons, J. 2003. ‘A-theory for tense logicians’. Analysis 63: 4-6. 6
How Alternative Question and Conjunctive Question Generate Contrastive Focus and Contrastive Topic, respectively Chungmin Lee, Seoul National University Abstract for the International Workshop "Where Semantics Meets Pragmatics" Michigan State University, July 11-13, 2003 This paper proposes a reasonable distinction between Contrastive Focus (CF) and Contrastive Topic (CT), based on a dialogue/discourse model of question and answer. It basically argues that CF follows (/accommodates) an alternative disjunctive question, whereas CT responds to a conjunct of a previous/accommodated conjunctive question with a potential Topic (Lee 1999). This explains why CF is exhaustive and why CT conveys a negative (higher) predicate meaning. This distinction will help remove much confusion about the categories CF and CT in the field of information structure (e.g. Choi 1999 and many others) and help understand how far semantics works and from what point pragmatics intervenes. Recently much has been done on CT in English (Steedman 2000), in German (Buring 2000) and in Korean (1999) but the nature of CF has not been well explored and the two categories have not been clearly characterized in a question and answer dialogue model, although Carlson (1983) and Roberts (1996) touch on the model with respect to CT. This paper will use Korean and English data for arguments, but will utilize some other languages whenever necessary. If some matters of concern are poised as disjunctive, e.g., as in an alternative disjunctive question (ADQ), and the speaker responds with a disjunct of the Q, making a choice, then it becomes a CF. Consider the (accommodated) question (1) and a reply (2) or (2 ): (1) Did the baby pick the money first/H% or the pen first\L%?: (2) She picked the MONEY CF first. (ACC required, not a CT marker in Korean/Japanese) (2 ) (aki-ka) TON CF -ul/?*ton-un mence cip-ess-e. (Korean) baby-NOM money-ACC/money-CT first pick-PAST-DEC The baby picked the money first(?* CT ). Because of the alternative question intonation /H% \L%? in (1), the speaker presupposes not both and the choice item in reply (2) is exhaustive. The other alternative is excluded. Therefore, if the reply is given in a context corresponding to And she also picked the pen first, then the reply sentence turns out to be false. In (2 ), we can see the object taking the ACC marker, not the CT marker. Case-marking is compatible with focus no matter whether it is informational or contrastive. Extending Schwarzschild s.(1999) F-marking for not given, we mobilize CFmarking as follows: (3) {Mary s old convertible is no longer available. What is Sam going to do?} A: He ll [rentH* F her newH* CF convertible] F (4) Is he going to do something about the oldH* convertible or do something about the newH* convertible?
Page 1 and 2:
Where Semantics Meets Pragmatics Fi
Page 3 and 4:
Saturday, 12 - July - 2003 9.00-10.
Page 5 and 6:
MOOD, PROPOSITIONAL ATTITUDES AND M
Page 7 and 8:
Most: Reversing some of the roles o
Page 9 and 10:
In fact, Table 2 shows that the 93.
Page 11 and 12:
6. Benny Avraham, Adi Avitan, Omar
Page 13 and 14:
Scalar Implicature 1 The Time Cours
Page 15 and 16:
Scalar Implicature 3 times for the
Page 17 and 18:
Scalar Implicature 5 more available
Page 19 and 20: 1 Anaphora resolution Nominals are
Page 21 and 22: For aspectual adverbials, (i) the o
Page 23 and 24: —, but cannot be used to directly
Page 25 and 26: the acts are perceived. In particul
Page 27 and 28: negation (see Cormack & Smith 1998)
Page 34 and 35: ÀÓÛ ØÓ ÒÝ ÈÖ×ÙÔÔÓ×
Page 36 and 37: ÇÒ ×Ù Ø×Ø × ÒØÓÒ Û Ò
Page 38 and 39: ÊÖÒ× ÙÖØÓÒ¹ÊÓÖØ×¸
Page 40 and 41: metonymy here, hence, it is (perhap
Page 42 and 43: prominent features (e.g. looking fo
Page 44 and 45: the complete lack of suggestion tha
Page 46 and 47: Tolerating exceptions with „descr
Page 48 and 49: considering (3a), for example, it w
Page 50 and 51: SUPERLATIVE QUANTIFIERS AND THE DYN
Page 52 and 53: Groenendijk, Jeroen, Martin Stokhof
Page 54 and 55: Furthermore, propositions, facts, a
Page 56 and 57: 4 (13) The electrical poles are per
Page 58 and 59: Gundel, Jeanette K., Kaja Borthen a
Page 60 and 61: y them, at least two more members o
Page 62 and 63: (9) Tā bìxū qù dàshĭguăn, c
Page 64 and 65: implicatures. BUCLD 25 Proceedings,
Page 66 and 67: 2 properties of mental states. The
Page 68 and 69: 4 Fig. 2 These three indices corres
Page 72 and 73: From (3) we can come up with an alt
Page 74 and 75: single S but L+H* compositionally s
Page 76 and 77: 1 The Hidden Path of Semantic Conte
Page 78 and 79: 3 their semantic contents. A sample
Page 80 and 81: Referential Expressions and Syntax-
Page 82 and 83: “Hanako i benefited from Masako j
Page 84 and 85: On the Properties of a Semantics-Pr
Page 86 and 87: (ii) Juan entró a su oficina camin
Page 88 and 89: The extractions that GPs allow are
Page 90 and 91: General Number and the Semantics an
Page 92 and 93: . Zuotian, wo mai le yixie shu. Wo
Page 94 and 95: We propose that the only mode of co
Page 96 and 97: account assume the existence of con
Page 99: meaningful way to connect the two s
show all

SemPrag03.Progr.pdf - Institut für Linguistik/Germanistik - Universität ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?