semantics group 6/23
13 views
Skip to first unread message
Makoto Kanazawa
Jun 16, 2017, 4:18:46 AM6/16/17
to linguis...@googlegroups.com
意味論研究会のお知らせ
次回の意味論研究会の会合をお知らせします．どなたでも参加出来ますので，多くの方の参加をお待ちしています．
とき： ６月２３日 午後４：３０
ところ： 慶応義塾大学 三田キャンパス 南別館７階
http://www.keio.ac.jp/ja/access/index.html
http://www.keio.ac.jp/ja/access/mita.html
講演者： 上垣 渉 (Leiden University)
タイトル： The anti-rogativity of non-factive preferential predicates
概要：
(Joint work with Yasutada Sudo.)
The existence of anti-rogative predicates, i.e., clause-embedding predicates that only select for declarative complements (e.g., “hope”, “believe”, “think”), poses a problem for the semantics of clausal embedding. If embedded questions can be reduced to propositions under some predicates such as “know (by e.g., the answerhood operator; Heim 1994, Dayal 1996), it is not clear why the same mechanism cannot apply to anti-rogative predicates. On the other hand, if a semantic type distinction is made between anti-rogative and question-embedding predicates, it remains unclear why the distinction correlates with certain lexical semantic properties, such as neg-raising property (Zuber 1982; Thriller et al. 2016) and factivity (Egré 2008).
In this talk, we point out another cross-linguistically stable correlation between anti-rogativity and lexical semantics, namely that all non-factive preferential predicates, such as “wish” and “hope”, are anti-rogative, and provide a semantic analysis of the correlation. We show that this correlation can be straightforwardly explained in a framework such as Inquisitive Semantics in which complements uniformly denote sets of propositions (Uegaki 2015; Theiler et al. 2016), when coupled with independently motivated semantics of factivity and preferentiality. In particular, we show that the ordering-based semantics for preferential predicates (e.g., Heim 1992; Villalta 2008) leads to systematic triviality when the whole set of propositions denoted by an interrogative complement enter into the ordering relation, and that this happens precisely when the predicate is non-factive preferential, as in the case of “wish” and “hope”.
意味論研究会のホームページは
http://research.nii.ac.jp/~kanazawa/semantics-j.html です．
金沢 誠
〒101-8430 東京都千代田区一ツ橋2-1-2 国立情報学研究所
Tel: 03-4212-2651（直通） Fax: 03-4212-2035
http://research.nii.ac.jp/~kanazawa/
http://twitter.com/makotokanazawa
次回の意味論研究会の会合をお知らせします．どなたでも参加出来ますので，多くの方の参加をお待ちしています．
とき： ６月２３日 午後４：３０
ところ： 慶応義塾大学 三田キャンパス 南別館７階
http://www.keio.ac.jp/ja/access/index.html
http://www.keio.ac.jp/ja/access/mita.html
講演者： 上垣 渉 (Leiden University)
タイトル： The anti-rogativity of non-factive preferential predicates
概要：
(Joint work with Yasutada Sudo.)
The existence of anti-rogative predicates, i.e., clause-embedding predicates that only select for declarative complements (e.g., “hope”, “believe”, “think”), poses a problem for the semantics of clausal embedding. If embedded questions can be reduced to propositions under some predicates such as “know (by e.g., the answerhood operator; Heim 1994, Dayal 1996), it is not clear why the same mechanism cannot apply to anti-rogative predicates. On the other hand, if a semantic type distinction is made between anti-rogative and question-embedding predicates, it remains unclear why the distinction correlates with certain lexical semantic properties, such as neg-raising property (Zuber 1982; Thriller et al. 2016) and factivity (Egré 2008).
In this talk, we point out another cross-linguistically stable correlation between anti-rogativity and lexical semantics, namely that all non-factive preferential predicates, such as “wish” and “hope”, are anti-rogative, and provide a semantic analysis of the correlation. We show that this correlation can be straightforwardly explained in a framework such as Inquisitive Semantics in which complements uniformly denote sets of propositions (Uegaki 2015; Theiler et al. 2016), when coupled with independently motivated semantics of factivity and preferentiality. In particular, we show that the ordering-based semantics for preferential predicates (e.g., Heim 1992; Villalta 2008) leads to systematic triviality when the whole set of propositions denoted by an interrogative complement enter into the ordering relation, and that this happens precisely when the predicate is non-factive preferential, as in the case of “wish” and “hope”.
意味論研究会のホームページは
http://research.nii.ac.jp/~kanazawa/semantics-j.html です．
金沢 誠
〒101-8430 東京都千代田区一ツ橋2-1-2 国立情報学研究所
Tel: 03-4212-2651（直通） Fax: 03-4212-2035
http://research.nii.ac.jp/~kanazawa/
http://twitter.com/makotokanazawa
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages