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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The extractions that GPs allow are not possible for adjunct clauses; it is typically assumed that only complement clauses allow structures like (16) and (17). (16) What did John come home singing? (17) Qué vino cantando Juan? What came singing Juan What did Juan come (home) singing? As opposed to bi-clausal structure, this syntax allows the embedded phrase to be Focus. ‘iii’ Finally, the category Manner/Means as an event relation denotes two overlapping events (namely, the main event e M and the embedded event e G share the subevent e Z ) and an asymmetry condition on their respective event descriptions -δ(e M ) and δ(e G )- such that δ(e G ) is more specific about the shared subevent e Z than δ(e M ). In (8), δ(e M ) and δ(e G ) introduces the same Theme, Path, and Motion relation that correspond to the shared subevent e Z . However, δ(e G ) specifies the Means of the Motion relation in e Z and, hence, it is more specific since the only information in δ(e M ) that is absent δ(e G ) –namely, the boundary of the Path- does not describes e Z . I argue that the semantics-pragmatics interface is sensitive to this semantic asymmetry in information weight such that the more specific event description (i.e. the one that presents Manner) is associated with Focus whereas the other description with Presupposition; in consequence, we predict that GP is the unmarked Focus. A piece of evidence that supports this claim comes from the analysis of sentence (18) and (19) below. (18) El tenor canta gritando. The tenor sings screaming ‘The tenor scream when he sings’ (19) # El tenor grita cantando. The tenor screams singing ‘The tenor screams when he sings’ (intended meaning) Both event descriptions denote a sound emission event; the singing event description left unspecified the loudness of the sound and this information is contributed by the screaming event description. From this we would intuitively predict that ‘to sing screaming’ is a way of singing but ‘to scream singing’ is not a way of screaming. This is confirmed by the semantic oddity of (19). The linkage instantiated by (18) does not lie in a (broad) syntactic configuration. The same verbs under a comparable semantic relation has to be expressed with the reversed syntax just to maintain –I argue- the semantics-information structure mapping constant. Let’s look at the ‘when’ ATC. (20) El tenor grita cuando canta. The tenor screams when sings ‘The tenor scream when he sings’ (21) #El tenor canta cuando grita. The tenor sings when screams-he ‘The tenor scream when he sings’ (intended meaning)
As shown before in (14) and (15) the embedded clause in ATC –in contrast to SGC C - is presupposed; hence, the more specific event description has to be expressed in the main clause in (20) in order to maintain the cross-constructional linkage ‘more specific information-Focus’. In conclusion, I have shown that Manner/Means is an R-based implicature in utterance containing verbs belonging to specific semantic classes; namely, verbs that contain a lexical semantics underspecified for Means/Manner. I have also shown that this Semantics-Pragmatics pattern depends upon the satisfaction of a semantic constraint requiring overlapping events. Finally, I have argued that this interface pattern is also characterized by a systematic link between Means and Focus. References: Borgonovo, Claudia and Ad Neeleman. 2000. Transparent Adjuncts. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 45 (3/4):199-224. Horn, Larry . 1984. Toward a new taxonomy of pragmatic inference. Deborah Schiffrin (ed.) Meaning, Form, and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications. Washington: Georgetown University Press. Levinson, Stephen. 2000. Presumptive Meanings. Massachusetts: MIT Press. __________ 1987a. Minimization and Conversational Inference. Jef Verschueren and Marcella Bertuccelli-Papi (ed.). The Pragmatic Perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins. París, Luis. 2003. Grammatical encoding of event relations: Gerund Phrases in Spanish. Unpublished Dissertation, University at Buffalo, SUNY. Rappaport-Hovav, Malka and Beth Levin. 2001. An Event Structure Account of English Resultatives. Language 77(4): 766-797. Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
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 70 and 71: Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. McTagg
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 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 ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?