Factivity Alternation, Expletive Constructions, and Imaginative Worlds
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Cognitive (and emotive) factive predicates like know and remember (or be surprised) embed factively presupposed complement clauses, but presupposition for the cognitive category can be cancelled, yielding the factivity alternation phenomenon. This paper examines cross-linguistic data on factivity alternation, with special attention to its types (non-veridical operators, as in English, complement endings, as in Korean and other Altaic languages) and the function of focus marking for alternation in general, and pragmatic (Protagonist Projection) perspective shift helps resolve alternation for [+say]C(omplementizer), as in English. We note that the distinction between the covert/overt FACT (Kiparsky&Kiparsky 1972) and the [+say]C for the non-factive alternant and doxastic category, including imagine, in general. The non-canonical type of polar interrogative complementizer whether (or not) construction is argued to be in parallel with the polar interrogative expletive negation complement in Korean (K) and Japanese (J). In form, both are unexpected. But the expletive negation complement in K and J is unanimously accepted by native speakers, although the English counterpart is not that unanimous in acceptability and interpretation, despite White (2021). However, our survey supports a rather high acceptability and some tendency supporting our claim that the unusual constructions reveal positive bias and hedge in interpretation even in English, imagine whether is also included in our claim. This paper shows how lexical primitives and complement heads together give rise to factivity and its alternation and finally deals with the important world-creating function of imagine.
Abstract
Cognitive (and emotive) factive predicates like know and remember (or be surprised) embed factively presupposed complement clauses, but presupposition for the cognitive category can be cancelled, yielding the factivity alternation phenomenon. This paper examines cross-linguistic data on factivity alternation, with special attention to its types (non-veridical operators, as in English, complement endings, as in Korean and other Altaic languages) and the function of focus marking for alternation in general, and pragmatic (Protagonist Projection) perspective shift helps resolve alternation for [+say]C(omplementizer), as in English. We note that the distinction between the covert/overt FACT (Kiparsky&Kiparsky 1972) and the [+say]C for the non-factive alternant and doxastic category, including imagine, in general. The non-canonical type of polar interrogative complementizer whether (or not) construction is argued to be in parallel with the polar interrogative expletive negation complement in Korean (K) and Japanese (J). In form, both are unexpected. But the expletive negation complement in K and J is unanimously accepted by native speakers, although the English counterpart is not that unanimous in acceptability and interpretation, despite White (2021). However, our survey supports a rather high acceptability and some tendency supporting our claim that the unusual constructions reveal positive bias and hedge in interpretation even in English, imagine whether is also included in our claim. This paper shows how lexical primitives and complement heads together give rise to factivity and its alternation and finally deals with the important world-creating function of imagine.
참고문헌 (52)
- Abrusán, Márta., "Presupposition cancellation : explaining the ‘soft– hard’ trigger distinction", Natural Language Semantics, 24(2), pp.165~202 (2016)[DOI]
- Abrusán, Márta., "The spectrum of perspective shift : protagonist projection versus free indirect discourse", Linguistics and Philosophy, 44(4), pp.839~873 (2021)
- Abrusán, Márta., "The perspective-sensitivity of presuppositions", Mind and Language, 10, pp.1111~ (2022)[DOI]
- Abusch, Dorit., "Lexical alternatives as a source of pragmatic presuppositions", Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), 12, pp.1~19 (2002)[DOI]
- Abusch, Dorit., "Presupposition triggering from alternatives", Journal of Semantics, 27(1), pp.37~80 (2010)[DOI]
- Barwise, J., "Scenes and other situations", The Journal of Philosophy, 78(7), pp.369~397 (1981)[DOI]
- Beaver, D., "Have you noticed that your belly button lint color is related to the color of your clothing", Presuppositions and Discourse: Essays Of fered to Hans Kamp, 21, pp.65~100 (2010)[DOI]
- Choi Y., "Contrastivess in in information structure, alternatives and scalar implicatures", pp.175~201 (2017)
- Del Pinal, G., "The logicality of language : A new take on triviality, "ungrammaticality", and logical form", Noûs, 53(4), pp.785~818 (2019)
- Elliott, P. D., "Explaining DPs vs. CPs without syntax", Proceedings of CLS, 52, pp.171~185 (2016)
- Goldman, A. I., "A Causal Theory of Knowing", The Journal of Philosophy, 64(12), pp.357~372 (1967)[DOI]
- Embedded negative polar questions in Japanese: Explaining the puzzling distribution of embedded noncanonical negation via the speech act embedding complementizer to, "Goodhue, D.", ~ (2023)
- Hacquard, V., "Aspects of modality", PhD, pp.2006
- Hazlett, A., "The myth of factive verbs", Philosophy and phenomenological research, 80(3), pp.497~522 (2010)
- Heim, I., "Semantics in Generative Grammar" (1998), Blackwell
- Hintervimmer, S., "Two kinds of perspective taking in narrative texts", Proceedings of SALT, 27, pp.282~301 (2017)
- Hintikka, J., "Knowledge and Belief: An Introduction to the Logic of the Two Notions" (1962), Cornell University Press
- Holton, R., "Some telling examples : A reply to Tsohatzidis", Journal of Pragmatics, 28(5), pp.625~628 (1997)
- Horn, L. R., "Black Book: A Festschrift in Honor of Frans Zwarts", pp.178~196 (2014)
- Iida, T., "Epistemology for the Rest of the World", pp.22~55 (2018), Oxford University Press
- Karttunen, L., "Some observations on factivity", Papers in Linguistics, 4, pp.55~69 (1971)
- Karttunen, L., "Presuppositions of compound sentences", Linguistic Inquiry, 4(2), pp.169~193 (1973)
- Kim, M. -J., "E-Type Anaphora and Three Types of Key-Construction in Korean", Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, pp.345~377 (2009)[DOI]
- Kratzer, A., "Evidential Moods and the Semantics of Attitude and Speech Reports", 1st Syncart Workshop (Siena, July 13, 2016), and the University of Connecticut (2016)
- "Decomposing Attitude Verbs, handout honoring Anita Mittwoch on her 80th birthday at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem" (2006)[URL]
- "Modality and the semantics of embedding" (2013)[URL]
- Lahiri, U., "Questions and Answers in Embedded Contexts" (2002), Oxford University Press
- Lee, C., "Syntactic ambiguity in Korean", Talk at the Stanford Workshop on Korean Computational Linguistics (1988)
- Lee, C., "Contrastiveness in Information Structure, Alternatives and Scalar Implicatures", pp.3~21 (2017), Springer
- Lee, C., "Factivity Alternation of Attitude ‘know’ in Korean, Mongolian, Uyghur, Manchu, Azeri, etc. and Content Clausal Nominals", Journal of Cognitive Science, 20(4), pp.451~503 (2019)[DOI]
- Lee, C., "Factivity Alternation of the Verb ‘Know’ in Korean, Turkish and Hungarian", Studies in Modern Grammar, 100, pp.1~40 (2018)
- Lee, E-H, "The Logic of Narratives" (2020), Brill
- Lewis, D., "Scorekeeping in a language game", Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8, pp.339~359 (1979)[DOI]
- Liefke, K., "The selectional variability of ‘imagine whether’", Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 32, pp.639~660 (2022)[DOI]
- Liefke, K., "Experiential attitude reports", Philosophy Compass, 3, pp.12913~ (2023)[DOI]
- Mahler, Taylor, "Marie-Catherine de Marneffe and Catherine Lai", Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, 2, pp.20~37 (2020), Osnabrück University
- Moulton, K., "Natural selection and the syntax of clausal complementation", PhD, pp.2009
- Ozyıldız, D., "The event structure of attitudes", PhD, pp.2021
- Roberts, C., "Information structure: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics", Semantics and pragmatics, 5(6), pp.1~69 (2012)[DOI]
- Rooth, M.E., "Association with focus (Montague grammar, semantics, only, even)", PhD, pp.1985
- Rooth, M., "A theory of focus interpretation", Natural language semantics, 1(1), pp.75~116 (1992)
- Simons, M., "The best question : Explaining the projection behavior of factives", Discourse processes, 54(3), pp.187~206 (2017)[DOI]
- Sperlich, D., "The interactions between factivity and politeness in Korean discourse : An experimental approach", Lingua, 267, pp.103184~ (2022)[DOI]
- Stokke, A., "Protagonist projection", Mind & Language, 28(2), pp.204~232 (2013)[DOI]
- Theiler, N., "What’s wrong with believing whether?", Proceedings of SALT, 27, pp.248~265 (2017)
- Tsohatzidis, S. L., "Speaking of truth-telling : The view from whcomplements", Journal of pragmatics, 19(3), pp.271~279 (1993)[DOI]
- Vendler, Z., "RES COGITANS: An Essay in Rational Psychology" (1972), Cornell University Press
- Zuber, R., "Properties of propositional attitude operators", Linguistics and Philosophy, 46(2), pp.237~257 (2022)[DOI]
- Zwarts, F., "Nonveridical Contexts", Linguistic Analysis, 25, pp.286~312 (1995)
- White, A. S., "On believing and hoping whether", Semantics and pragmatics, 14(6), pp.1~21 (2021)[DOI]
- Wiegand, M., "‘I just know it’: Intensification as evidence for nonpresuppositional factivity", LSA Annual Meeting handout (2018)
- Wittgenstein, Ludwig, "On Certainty" (1969), Harper and Row