東華大學圖書館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

登入

回首頁

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

The Semantics of Responsive Predicat...

Roberts, Thomas de Haven.

FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

The Semantics of Responsive Predicates and Their Complements in Estonian.

紀錄類型:	書目-電子資源 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	The Semantics of Responsive Predicates and Their Complements in Estonian./
作者:	Roberts, Thomas de Haven.
出版者:	Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, : 2017,
面頁冊數:	64 p.
附註:	Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 57-02.
Contained By:	Masters Abstracts International57-02(E).
標題:	Linguistics. -
電子資源:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=10624151
ISBN:	9780355333947

The Semantics of Responsive Predicates and Their Complements in Estonian.
Roberts, Thomas de Haven.

The Semantics of Responsive Predicates and Their Complements in Estonian. - Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2017 - 64 p.

Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 57-02.

Thesis (M.A.)--University of California, Santa Cruz, 2017.

Responsive Predicates (ResPs)--those clausal-embedding predicates which permit both declarative or interrogative complements, like know and say--pose a puzzle for compositional semantics. If declarative clauses denote propositions and interrogative clauses denote questions, it is difficult to explain how ResPs may select both types of clauses. Prior accounts diverge on how to best rectify this inconsistency, from reducing interrogatives to propositions (Karttunen 1977, Ginsburg 1995, Spector & Egre 2015, a.o.), to reducing declaratives to questions (Uegaki 2016) or dispensing altogether with the assumption that the denotations of declaratives and interrogatives are of different types, as in Inquisitive Semantics (e.g. Theiler et al 2016).

ISBN: 9780355333947Subjects--Topical Terms:

524476
Linguistics.

The Semantics of Responsive Predicates and Their Complements in Estonian.
LDR:02969nmm a2200313 4500 001 2159341
005 20180628103545.5
008 190424s2017 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9780355333947
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI10624151
035 $a (MiAaPQ)ucsc:11366
035 $a AAI10624151
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Roberts, Thomas de Haven. $3 3347213
245 1 4 $a The Semantics of Responsive Predicates and Their Complements in Estonian.
260 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2017
300 $a 64 p.
500 $a Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 57-02.
500 $a Adviser: Pranav Anand.
502 $a Thesis (M.A.)--University of California, Santa Cruz, 2017.
520 $a Responsive Predicates (ResPs)--those clausal-embedding predicates which permit both declarative or interrogative complements, like know and say--pose a puzzle for compositional semantics. If declarative clauses denote propositions and interrogative clauses denote questions, it is difficult to explain how ResPs may select both types of clauses. Prior accounts diverge on how to best rectify this inconsistency, from reducing interrogatives to propositions (Karttunen 1977, Ginsburg 1995, Spector & Egre 2015, a.o.), to reducing declaratives to questions (Uegaki 2016) or dispensing altogether with the assumption that the denotations of declaratives and interrogatives are of different types, as in Inquisitive Semantics (e.g. Theiler et al 2016).
520 $a In this thesis I bring novel data from Estonian to bear on this theoretical debate. In Estonian, a class of ResPs whose denotations concern contemplation, such as motlema 'think, consider', convey what radically different meanings depending on the type of complement it takes: When paired with a declarative complement, motlema canonically indicates representational belief like English think, but with an interrogative complement, it indicates ignorance toward the true answer to the embedded question, like English wonder.
520 $a I demonstrate that a proposition-embedding denotation for motlema is not compatible with its full range of meanings. Instead, I propose a question-embedding semantics for motlema, which relates an individual to the set of issues they are contemplating. I show how this denotation, combined with standard Gricean reasoning, can naturally derive the superficially distinct interpretations of motlema across contexts. Building upon the analysis by Uegaki (2016), I argue that a proposition-embedding semantics for ResPs is not sufficient to capture the Estonian facts, whereas a question-embedding semantics is. Furthermore, I suggest that this approach is also compatible with the uniform treatment of declaratives and interrogatives of Inquisitive Semantics.
590 $a School code: 0036.
650 4 $a Linguistics. $3 524476
690 $a 0290
710 2 $a University of California, Santa Cruz. $b Linguistics. $3 2104170
773 0 $t Masters Abstracts International $g 57-02(E).
790 $a 0036
791 $a M.A.
792 $a 2017
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=10624151