scholarly journals The question of form in the forming of questions: The meaning and use of clefted wh-interrogatives in Swedish

2019 ◽  
Vol 55 (4) ◽  
pp. 755-794
Author(s):  
JOHAN BRANDTLER
Keyword(s):  
Information Structure ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Conversational Implicature ◽  
Syntactic Form ◽  
Existential Presupposition ◽  
Effective Choice ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Cost

This paper addresses the meaning and use of clefted wh-interrogatives (I-clefts) in Swedish. It is shown that I-clefts always relate immediately to the topic under discussion and serve to clarify a matter in relation to this topic. They are never used in out-of-the-blue contexts. I argue that I-clefts have the same information structure as typically assumed for declarative clefts: the clefted clause expresses an existential presupposition and the cleft phrase is the identificational focus of the utterance. I further argue that the implication of existence commonly associated with canonical argument questions is weaker (a conversational implicature) than the existential presupposition associated with clefts. The results from an extensive corpus survey show that argument I-clefts (who, what) constitute no less than 98% of the total number of I-clefts in my material. This frequency is linked to the presuppositional status of the cleft construction: in contexts where the denoted event is presupposed as part of the common ground, the clefted variety is the more effective choice, due to its clear partitioning of focus and ground. The ‘cost’ of using a more complex syntactic structure (the cleft) is thus counterbalanced by the benefit of being able to pose a question adjusted to the contextual requirements. As non-argument questions are typically presuppositional irrespective of syntactic form, the gain of using a cleft is less obvious – hence their infrequency in the material.

Interactive aspects of reference assignment in conversations

1998 ◽  
Vol 6 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 153-187 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara W. Smith ◽  
Andreas H. Jucker
Keyword(s):  
Common Ground ◽  
Referring Expressions ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Linguistic Approaches ◽  
Critical Aspects

We propose a model of reference that contrasts with standard linguistic approaches in that it focuses on the role of interaction in reference, arguing that referring expressions in conversations are not designed for interchangeable audiences but rather exploit the common ground between partners. Our model also differs from psycholinguistic approaches in that it uses conversational data, since critical aspects of natural conversations are absent from laboratory tasks used so far and thus are not captured by current models. Examples from conversations are presented to demonstrate that speakers often try to manage the accessibility of a problematic referent to an addressee by presenting a context for it as well as a referring expression, even at the cost of syntactic orthodoxy. We also present examples demonstrating that partners negotiate as to what representation is good enough for present purposes and whether that has been achieved. While strategies may vary as to explicitness, we believe these negotiations underlie all formulations of referring expressions.

Information Structure and the Landscape of (Non-)at-issue Meaning

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurence Horn
Keyword(s):  
Information Structure ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Category Membership ◽  
Conventional Implicature ◽  
Variable Strength ◽  
Nature Of Information ◽  
Truth Conditional ◽  
The Common ◽  
Issue Content

This article examines cases that illustrate the relation of information structure to truth-conditional semantics, grammatical form, and assertoric force. Before discussing the interaction between information structure and (non-)at-issue meaning, it considers the nature of information and what constitutes information. It then looks at two aspects of the common ground, common ground (CG) content and CG management, as well as the criteria of category membership. The article also explores the varying degrees of at-issueness, the role of rhetorical opposition andbutclauses, as well as the variable strength of at-issue content. The landscape of non-at-issue meaning is presented, and the distinction between conventional implicature and assertorically inert entailments is highlighted using a range of distributional diagnostics. The article concludes by analysing the relation between structural focus and exhaustivity using the semantic and pragmatic approaches.

scholarly journals Deconstructing Questions: Reanalyzing a heterogenous class of speech acts via commitment and engagement

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 56-82
Author(s):  
Johannes M. Heim ◽  
Martina E. Wiltschko
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Speech Acts ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Speech Act ◽  
Propositional Attitudes ◽  
Direct Link ◽  
Alternative Account ◽  
Syntactic Form ◽  
Pragmatic Function ◽  
The Common

Direct and indirect characterizations of the relation between clause type (syntactic form) and speech act (pragmatic function) are problematic because they map oversimplified forms onto decomposable functions. We propose an alternative account of questions by abandoning any (in)direct link to their clause type and by decomposing speech acts into two variables encoding propositional attitudes. One variable captures the speaker’s commitment to an utterance, another their expectation toward the addressee’s engagement. We couch this proposal in a syntactic framework that relies on two projections dedicated to managing common ground (GroundP) and managing turn-taking (ResponseP), respectively. Empirical evidence comes from the conversational properties of sentence-final intonation in English and sentence-peripheral particles that serve to manage the common ground.

Developing the adaptive process-based budgeting through TD-ABC and TD-ABB as part of strategic management accounting

2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (10) ◽  
pp. 1182-1194
Author(s):  
A.A. Akhmetzyanov ◽  
A.Yu. Sokolov
Keyword(s):  
Strategic Management ◽  
Cost Allocation ◽  
Management Accounting ◽  
Practical Significance ◽  
Common Time ◽  
Strategic Management Accounting ◽  
Scientific Papers ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Cost

Subject. The article focuses on the advanced time-driven tools for allocating overhead expenses, which are based on process-based budgeting. Objectives. We articulate a technique for cost allocation so as to assess the cost of each process with reference to the common time driver. Methods. The study relies upon methods of systematization, classification, analogy and comparison, and summarizes the scientific literature on the subject. Results. The article presents our own suggestions on implementing TD-ABC and TD-ABB into the strategic management accounting process of developer companies. The principles were proved to help more effectively allocate overhead expenses and assess the capacity load of each process performed by functions, departments and employees. Carrying out a comparative analysis, we found certain reserves for utilizing resources more effectively. Conclusions and Relevance. The findings are of scientific and practical significance and can be used by developer and construction businesses. The conclusions can prove helpful for scientific papers, student books, and further research.

The Semantics of Evidentials

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah E. Murray
Keyword(s):  
Recent Work ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Formal Semantics ◽  
Empirical Support ◽  
Propositional Content ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
Truth Conditional ◽  
The Common ◽  
Issue Content

This book gives a compositional, truth‐conditional, crosslinguistic semantics for evidentials set in a theory of the semantics for sentential mood. Central to this semantics is a proposal about a distinction between what propositional content is at‐issue, roughly primary or proffered, and what content is not‐at‐issue. Evidentials contribute not‐at‐issue content, more specifically what I will call a not‐at‐issue restriction. In addition, evidentials can affect the level of commitment a sentence makes to the main proposition, contributed by sentential mood. Building on recent work in the formal semantics of evidentials and related phenomena, the proposed semantics does not appeal to separate dimensions of illocutionary meaning. Instead, I argue that all sentences make three contributions: at‐issue content, not‐at‐issue content, and an illocutionary relation. At‐issue content is presented, made available for subsequent anaphora, but is not directly added to the common ground. Not‐at‐issue content directly updates the common ground. The illocutionary relation uses the at‐issue content to impose structure on the common ground, which, depending on the clause type (e.g., declarative, interrogative), can trigger further updates. Empirical support for this proposal comes from Cheyenne (Algonquian, primary data from the author’s fieldwork), English, and a wide variety of languages that have been discussed in the literature on evidentials.

Can Groups Assert That P?

2019 ◽  
pp. 326-344
Author(s):  
Deborah Tollefsen
Keyword(s):  
Common Ground ◽  
Speech Act ◽  
Single Individual ◽  
Constitutive Rule ◽  
The Past ◽  
Group Members ◽  
The Common ◽  
Declarative Statement ◽  
John Macfarlane

When a group or institution issues a declarative statement, what sort of speech act is this? Is it the assertion of a single individual (perhaps the group’s spokesperson or leader) or the assertion of all or most of the group members? Or is there a sense in which the group itself asserts that p? If assertion is a speech act, then who is the actor in the case of group assertion? These are the questions this chapter aims to address. Whether groups themselves can make assertions or whether a group of individuals can jointly assert that p depends, in part, on what sort of speech act assertion is. The literature on assertion has burgeoned over the past few years, and there is a great deal of debate regarding the nature of assertion. John MacFarlane has helpfully identified four theories of assertion. Following Sandy Goldberg, we can call these the attitudinal account, the constitutive rule account, the common-ground account, and the commitment account. I shall consider what group assertion might look like under each of these accounts and doing so will help us to examine some of the accounts of group assertion (often presented as theories of group testimony) on offer. I shall argue that, of the four accounts, the commitment account can best be extended to make sense of group assertion in all its various forms.

scholarly journals Light-Load Efficiency Improvement for Ultrahigh Step-Down Converter Based on Skip Mode

Electronics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 355
Author(s):  
Yeu-Torng Yau ◽  
Chao-Wei Wang ◽  
Kuo-Ing Hwu
Keyword(s):  
Integrated Circuit ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Switching Frequency ◽  
Efficiency Improvement ◽  
Pulse Width Modulated ◽  
Light Load ◽  
Mode 2 ◽  
Skip Mode ◽  
Step Down ◽  
The Cost

In this paper, two light-load efficiency improvement methods are presented and applied to the ultrahigh step-down converter. The two methods are both based on skip mode control. Skip Mode 1 only needs one half-bridge driver integrated circuit (IC) to drive three switches, so it has the advantages of easy signal control and lower cost, whereas Skip Mode 2 requires one half-bridge driver integrated circuit IC, one common ground driver IC, and three independent timing pulse-width-modulated (PWM) signals to control three switches, so the cost is higher and the control signals are more complicated, but Skip Mode 2 can obtain slightly higher light-load efficiency than Skip Mode 1. Although the switching frequency used in these methods are reduced, the transferred energy is unchanged, but the output voltage ripple is influenced to some extent.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document