Echoicity and contrast in Spanish conditionals

2019 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 601-635
Author(s):  
Elena Castroviejo ◽  
Laia Mayol
Keyword(s):  
Common Ground ◽  
Simple Analysis ◽  
Contrastive Topic ◽  
Pragmatic Function ◽  
Pragmatic Reasoning ◽  
Question Under Discussion ◽  
The Common ◽  
The One ◽  
Joint Occurrence

Abstract This paper is concerned with a conditional construction in Spanish, which we call echoic contrastive conditional, ecc for short. In eccs, the consequent is entailed, the antecedent echoes the content of a previous assertion, and both antecedent and consequent are marked with a Contrastive Topic. Our goal is to fit these properties in a formal explanation compatible with a simple analysis of conditionals. We claim that eccs are a subtype of biscuit conditional, in that antecedent and consequent are independent (i.e. do not express a hypothetical relation). Additionally, we assume that pragmatic reasoning has to explain why a conditional is used to express an adversative relation between the two clauses. First, a proposition that has already been proposed to increase the Common Ground is placed in the antecedent of a conditional in which there is no hypothetical relation between p and q. Thus, the addressee needs to reason as to the pragmatic function the speaker wants to achieve. Second, the Contrastive Topic marking signals that both conjuncts are answers to a multiple wh-question, proposed by the speaker as the current Question Under Discussion (QUD). Third, the answer provided by the second conjunct is a stronger argument for the speaker’s communicative goal than the one provided by the first conjunct. The joint occurrence of echoicity, lack of dependence and Contrastive Topic marking leads to an adversative rhetorical relation between the conjuncts.

Fielding and Richardson

PMLA ◽  
1966 ◽  
Vol 81 (5) ◽  
pp. 381-388
Author(s):  
William Park
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Eighteenth Century ◽  
Human Nature ◽  
General Type ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
The Other ◽  
The Novel ◽  
Tom Jones ◽  
The Common ◽  
The One

But the Discovery [of when to laugh and when to cry] was reserved for this Age, and there are two Authors now living in this Metropolis, who have found out the Art, and both brother Biographers, the one of Tom Jones, and the other of Clarissa.author of Charlotte SummersRather than discuss the differences which separate Fielding and Richardson, I propose to survey the common ground which they share with each other and with other novelists of the 1740's and 50's. In other words I am suggesting that these two masters, their contemporaries, and followers have made use of the same materials and that as a result the English novels of the mid-eighteenth century may be regarded as a distinct historic version of a general type of literature. Most readers, it seems to me, do not make this distinction. They either think that the novel is always the same, or they believe that one particular group of novels, such as those written in the early twentieth century, is the form itself. In my opinion, however, we should think of the novel as we do of the drama. No one kind of drama, such as Elizabethan comedy or Restoration comedy, is the drama itself; instead, each is a particular manifestation of the general type. Each kind bears some relationship to the others, but at the same time each has its own identity, which we usually call its conventions. By conventions I mean not only stock characters, situations, and themes, but also notions and assumptions about the novel, human nature, society, and the cosmos itself. If we compare one kind of novel to another without first considering the conventions of each, we are likely to make the same mistake that Thomas Rymer did when he blamed Shakespeare for not conforming to the canons of classical French drama.

Multiple Sluicing, Scope, and Superiority: Consequences for Ellipsis Identity

2018 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 781-812 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hadas Kotek ◽  
Matthew Barros
Keyword(s):  
Common Ground ◽  
Scalar Implicatures ◽  
Truth Conditional ◽  
Question Under Discussion ◽  
The Common ◽  
Semantic Identity ◽  
Context Of Utterance

This article defends a semantic identity account of ellipsis licensing. The argument comes from examples of multiple sluicing, especially from Russian. Concentrating on antecedents that contain two quantified statements, we uncover a surprising asymmetry: surface scope antecedents can license a multiple sluice, but inverse scope antecedents cannot. We explain this finding in terms of semantic accounts of ellipsis licensing, where ellipsis is licensed when the sluice corresponds to an (implicit) question under discussion. We show that QUDs cannot be computed from the truth-conditional content of the antecedents alone; instead, they must be computed only after (scalar) implicatures have been calculated and added to the common ground, along with the context of utterance. We further discuss the commitments required of syntactic/LF identity accounts of ellipsis licensing in order to accommodate multiple sluicing with quantified antecedents, and argue that such accounts are practically untenable.

The Difference between Lying and Misleading

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas Stokke
Keyword(s):  
Common Ground ◽  
What Is Said ◽  
Conversational Implicatures ◽  
The World ◽  
Question Under Discussion ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Prosodic Focus

The notions of what is said and assertion, as relative to questions under discussion, are used to provide an account of the lying-misleading distinction. The chapter argues that utterances are sometimes interpreted relative to the so-called Big Question, roughly paraphrased by “What is the world like?” This observation is shown to account for the fact that, when conveying standard conversational implicatures, what is asserted is likewise proposed for the common ground. The chapter applies the resulting account of the lying-misleading distinction to ways of lying and misleading with incomplete predicates, possessives, presuppositions, pronouns, and prosodic focus. A formal notion of contextual questionentailment is defined which shows when it is possible to mislead with respect to a question under discussion while avoiding outright lying.

Assertion

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guiming Yang ◽  
Sanford C. Goldberg
Keyword(s):  
Philosophy Of Language ◽  
Speech Acts ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Speech Act ◽  
Great Length ◽  
Lottery Ticket ◽  
Constitutive Rule ◽  
Explicit Content ◽  
The Common ◽  
The One

In the past two to three decades, most of the philosophical attention that has been paid to the speech act of assertion aims to characterize the nature of the act. A first question that is pursued concerns where the speech act of assertion fits within the domain of assertives (the category speech acts in which a proposition is presented-as-true). Simply put, assertions are those assertive speech acts in which the speaker advances a claim. But what is it to perform this sort of speech act? What is the nature of the act? Philosophers have proposed six main answers. These include the attitude view (which characterizes the nature of the act in terms of its role in expressing belief), the grammatical view (on which assertion is picked out by the vehicles used to make acts of this kind, namely, declarative sentences), the common ground view (where assertion is understood in terms of its essential effect on a conversation’s common ground), the commitment view (where assertion is characterized in terms of the kind of commitment that is engendered or reconfirmed by the performance of acts of this type), the constitutive rule view (according to which assertions are individuated by the distinctive rule that governs acts of this type) and the no-assertion view (which holds that there is no unique, interesting speech act type picked out by ‘assertion’). Of these six views, the one that has received the most attention (both critical and supportive) is the constitutive rule view. Such a view has been developed (and criticized) at great length. A leading version of the constitutive rule view is the view that the rule in question requires that one assert only what one knows. The main considerations offered in defense of this version of the view include its role in explaining various features of our assertoric practice, including the paradoxicality of assertions of sentences of the form ‘p, but I do not know that p’, its role in explaining why propositions expressed with, for example, ‘My lottery ticket lost’ are not properly assertable on merely probabilistic grounds (even when the odds of one’s winning are arbitrarily small) and its role in explaining why ‘How do you know?’ is a proper response to an assertion (even when the assertion’s explicit content has nothing to do with the speaker’s knowledge). However, many authors have responded to these arguments for the knowledge rule, finding them unconvincing. Interestingly, a great amount of attention has also been devoted to forging connections between the speech act of assertion and a variety of other topics of philosophical interest. These include topics in philosophy of language (pragmatics, semantics), epistemology (the epistemology of testimony, the epistemology of disagreement, the nature of epistemic authority, the division of epistemic labor), metaphysics (the nature of future contingents, modality), ethics (the ethics of assertion; what we owe to each other as information-sharing creatures) and social and political philosophy (various forms of epistemic injustice, silencing).

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.

scholarly journals The Alleged (De)Politicization Problem of Post-Critical Pedagogy Reconsidered

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (9) ◽  
Author(s):  
Franz Kasper Krönig
Keyword(s):  
Critical Pedagogy ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Nodal Point ◽  
The Other ◽  
The Political ◽  
Political Dimension ◽  
The Common ◽  
The One ◽  
And Function ◽  
Meaning And Function

This essay tries to intervene in the discussion between Naomi Hodgson on the one hand and Joris Vlieghe and Piotr Zamojski on the other about the meaning and function of the political in and for education. Firstly, it argues against the common charge of essentialism that is brought against ontological philosophies in general and the Heideggerian ontology of Vlieghe and Zamojski in particular. Secondly, the essay suggests the existentialist concept of ‘the situation’ as a theoretical nodal point that can grasp the inherently quasi-political dimension of pedagogical work and hence provide common ground for the two positions discussed.

Cultural Ecology

2004 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas J. Bassett ◽  
Karl S. Zimmerer
Keyword(s):  
Political Ecology ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Cultural Ecology ◽  
Central Research ◽  
Environmental Interactions ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Common ◽  
The One ◽  
Cultural And Political Ecology

Cultural ecology in the 1990s was a highly productive and rapidly growing specialty group within geography. The group’s scholarship has contributed to a number of core themes and concepts in geography and in related fields within the social and biogeophysical sciences and humanities (Butzer 1989, 1990a; Porter 1991; B. L. Turner 1997a; Zimmerer 1996c). This review evaluates the central research contributions—findings, themes, concepts, methods—of North American geographical cultural ecology over this decade (1990–9). The evaluation is based on the clustering of the contributions of the 1990s into eight main areas: long-term cultural ecology; resource management; local knowledge; pastoralism; environmental politics; protected areas; gender ecology; and environmental discourses (Figs 8.1 and 8.2). Notable accomplishments and characteristic approaches are reviewed in each area. Emphasis is placed on the continued evolution of the common ground of cultural ecology and its most prominent offshoot, political ecology. A nature-culture or nature-society core is central to advances of the 1990s. This core is made up of interacting dialectical processes of culture-and-consciousness and domestic-and-political economy, on the one hand, and non-human nature, on the other hand (Zimmerer and Young 1998: 5). Increased awareness of this recursive interaction has led to a historical perspective that is common to much work in cultural and political ecology during the past decade (Figs 8.1 and 8.2). Culture and society in environmental interactions are considered with new importance granted to the multiple forms and contingencies of spatial scale, from the local to the global, as well as varied temporal frames. Culture and society are conceptualized in new ways while, at the same time, the biogeophysical environments themselves are thought of as increasingly complex and less spatially and temporally predictable than was previously presumed.

Contrast, Verum Focus and Anaphora: The Case of et pourtant si/non in French

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-41
Author(s):  
JOAN BUSQUETS
Keyword(s):  
Possible Worlds ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Modal Operator ◽  
Question Under Discussion ◽  
The Common

This study examines the anaphoric status of the sequence et pourtant si/non in French. This sequence displays some properties not only of TP-Ellipsis but also of propositional anaphora. Consequently, the antecedent of this sequence can be recovered by means of either type of anaphoric process. I argue that the salient and relevant antecedent is constrained by the presence of a modalized environment. I claim that the discursive marker pourtant is assimilated to a modal operator (Jayez 1988, Martin 1987) expressing discourse contrast between two propositions anchored in two possible worlds that are not contradictory. Polarity Particles (POLPARTS) involved in this sequence are analyzed as emphasizing the truth of a proposition. As such, they are conveying semantic contrast between two polarities, that of a salient and accessible discourse antecedent and that of the missing part after et pourtant si/non. This is how POLPARTS upgrade the Common Ground. I develop a focus-based account for Verum Focus, building on alternatives along the lines of Hardt & Romero (2004). I suggest that the scope of an epistemic operator (Romero & Han 2004) and the conditions of use are relevant in order to reconstruct the adequate antecedent, which is not possible in an analysis based solely on lexical insertion and upgrading the Question Under Discussion (qud) by conditions governing the felicitous use of et pourtant si/non.

THE EU SUGAR MARKET PROFILE AND ITS MAIN DRIVERS

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lubos SMUTKA ◽  
Irena BENEŠOVÁ ◽  
Patrik ROVNÝ ◽  
Renata MATYSIK-PEJAS
Keyword(s):  
Market Failure ◽  
Current System ◽  
Quota System ◽  
Considerable Debate ◽  
Sugar Market ◽  
The Common ◽  
The One ◽  
Production Capacities ◽  
The Given ◽  
The Eu

Sugar is one of the most important elements in human nutrition. The Common Market Organisation for sugar has been a subject of considerable debate since its establishment in 1968. The European agricultural market has been criticized for its heavy regulations and subsidization. The sugar market is one of the most regulated ones; however, this will change radically in 2017 when the current system of production quotas will end. The current EU sugar market changed is structure during the last several decades. The significant number of companies left the market and EU internal sugar market became more concentrated. The aim of this paper is presentation characteristics of sugar market with respect to the supposed market failure – reduction in competition. The analysis also identifies the main drivers and determinants of the EU especially quota sugar market. In relation to paper’s aim the following results are important. The present conditions of the European sugar market have led to market failure when nearly 75 % (10 million tonnes) of the quota is controlled by five multinational companies only. These multinational alliances (especially German and French one) are also taking control over the production capacities of their subsidiaries. In most countries, this causes serious problems as the given quota is controlled by one or two producers only. This is a significant indicator of market imperfection. The quota system cannot overcome the problem of production quotas on the one hand and the demand on the other; furthermore, it also leads to economic inefficiency. The current EU sugar market is under the control of only Sudzucker, Nordzucker, Pfeifer and Langen, Tereos and ABF.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document