The Information-Structural Status of Adjuncts: A Question-under-Discussion-Based Approach

And Linguistics

The focus of the book is the semantics of reasons locutions, for example reasons for someone to do something or believe something or be a certain way. Given the leading role that talk of reasons plays in many different kinds of philosophy, the book addresses issues in the theory of reasons, metaethics, epistemology, the philosophies of language and perception, and linguistics. The primary aim of the book is to present and defend a contextualist semantics of reasons locutions. the book’s contextualism for reasons locutions is based on the idea that conversations have a particular question under discussion (QUD). The QUD in a conversation determines which meaning the word ‘reason’ has in that context. The book shows why reasons contextualism is preferable to four competing views on the topic: Simon Blackburn’s expressivism, Stephen Finlay’s conceptual analysis, Tim Henning’s alternative contextualism, and Niko Kolodny’s relativism. In addition, the work pursues secondary aims of consolidating insights about the nature of reasons from different philosophical subfields and establishing results about reasons in several debates ranging across philosophy. In particular, the book draws the implications of reasons contextualism for the ontology of reasons, indexical facts, whether there are reasons to be rational, the nature of moral reasons, and the idea that reasons have a special place in the realm of normative phenomena in general.

Two Types of Constructionalization Processes in Spanish and Portuguese Clefted wh-interrogatives

Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics ◽

10.1515/shll-2021-2042 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 14 (1) ◽

pp. 117-160

Author(s):

Malte Rosemeyer

Keyword(s):

Puerto Rican ◽

Information Seeking ◽

Brazilian Portuguese ◽

Semantic Change ◽

Puerto Rican Spanish ◽

Discourse Functions ◽

Madrid Spanish ◽

Spanish Dialects

Abstract The present paper analyzes and compares the use of clefted wh-interrogatives in spoken Madrid Spanish, Puerto Rican Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese. In a first step, a typology of the discourse functions of clefted wh-interrogatives is established. This typology is partially governed by the strength of the presupposition of the proposition of the wh-interrogative. The results suggest the existence of two distinct constructionalization processes 1 March 2021. First, in the Spanish dialects, clefted wh-interrogatives with copula deletion are specialized in the expression of interactional challenges. Second, both Puerto Rican Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese evidence a change in the use of information-seeking clefted wh-interrogatives towards contexts in which the proposition of the interrogative is not activated. Consequently, in these dialects clefted wh-interrogatives can be used to establish questions not related to the current Question Under Discussion. However, this semantic change can be characterized as a constructionalization process only in Brazilian Portuguese.

Why say it that way?: evasive answers and politeness theory

Journal of Politeness Research ◽

10.1515/pr-2016-0047 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 15 (1) ◽

pp. 55-75

Author(s):

Jessica Marsh

Keyword(s):

Literal Meaning ◽

Politeness Theory ◽

Abstract Examples of evasive answers frequently appear in discussions of non-literal meaning comprehension. A considerable amount of work on this topic has focused on how this kind of non-literal meaning is generated. Of the researchers who have dealt with speakers’ motives for using evasive answers, and how hearers’ awareness of these motives affects their interpretations, the majority have focused on evasive answers that are not intended to be recognized as such – in Gricean terms, those that violate the Maxim of Relation. Comparatively little research has dealt with answers that are blatant in their failure to answer the question – that is, those that flout Relation. This paper proposes that the majority of answers in the latter category can be understood using Brown and Levinson’s (1978, 1987) model of politeness – in particular, that evasive answers are motivated by considerations for both speaker and hearer’s positive face-wants. Evasive answers are defined according to Roberts’ (2012) model of “the question under discussion” and characterized in terms of violating, infringing, or flouting Grice’s (1975) Maxim of Relation. Various contexts in which the latter category of evasive answers occur are identified and discussed with reference to their role in avoiding face-threatening acts. Potential exceptions to the proposition that blatantly evasive answers can be explained using Brown and Levinson’s (1978, 1987) model of politeness are identified, and problems with treating violating, infringing, and flouting as clearly distinct categories are discussed.

Coercion in Educational Settings

Behaviour Change ◽

10.1375/bech.16.2.79 ◽

1999 ◽

Vol 16 (2) ◽

pp. 79-88 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Murray Sidman

Keyword(s):

Positive Reinforcement ◽

Original Problem ◽

Negative Reinforcement ◽

Educational Settings ◽

Behaviour Modification ◽

Control Techniques ◽

Behaviour Analysis ◽

Applied Behaviour Analysis ◽

Behavioural Research ◽

AbstractCoercion is defined as the control of behaviour through (a) punishment or the threat of punishment, or (b) negative reinforcement — the removal of punishment. The question under discussion is whether coercion is an effective and a desirable basis for applied behaviour analysis, particularly in educational settings. Because coercive control has always been characteristic of society in general, the problem requires consideration of all facets of our culture. Behaviour analysts who use or recommend coercive techniques of therapy, behaviour modification, teaching, parenting, and so on, must be viewed in that context. In many areas of society, the practice of coercion has been refined and perfected to an extent that applied behaviour analysis has never approached. Applied behavioural research therefore contributes nothing new when it applies coercive methodology. Also, coercion produces side effects that may be even less desirable than the original problem behaviour. The occasional need to use coercion to deal with emergencies does not justify the advocacy of coercion as a principle of therapy. What basic and applied behaviour analysts can offer that is new and constructive are positive reinforcement techniques for teaching new behaviour and stimulus-control techniques for establishing cognitive repertoires.

Belydenis in kerkregtelike verband met besondere verwysing na die konsep Kerkorde 1997, Nederduitsch Hervormde Kerk van Afrika

HTS Teologiese Studies / Theological Studies ◽

10.4102/hts.v53i4.1793 ◽

1997 ◽

Vol 53 (4) ◽

Author(s):

S. J. Botha

Keyword(s):

Special Reference ◽

Short Discussion ◽

Difficult Question ◽

Church Polity ◽

The Reformation ◽

Confession in the context of ecclesiastical polity with special reference to the concept Church Ordinance 1997, Nederduitsch Hervormde Kerk van Afrika. In essence the question under discussion is about the functioning of the confession in church polity and how it is phrased in the concept Church Ordinance (1997) of the Nederduitsch Hervormde Kerk van Afrika. This logically brings the very difficult question of doctrinal discipline up for discussion. The paper starts with a few remarks on the relation between scripture, confession and church polity. The tradition, forming the background of the concept, is traced from the time of the Reformation. After a short discussion on how doctrinal discipline was seen and put into practice in the Nederduitsch Hervormde Kerk van Afrika, final remarks are made on how this matter is handled in the concept.

Discourse Expectations Are Sensitive to the Question Under Discussion: Evidence From ERPs

Discourse Processes ◽

10.1080/0163853x.2019.1575140 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 57 (2) ◽

pp. 122-140

Author(s):

Francesca Delogu ◽

Torsten Jachmann ◽

Maria Staudte ◽

Francesco Vespignani ◽

Nicola Molinaro

Keyword(s):

Context Effects in Discourse: The Question Under Discussion

Discourse Processes ◽

10.1080/0163853x.2017.1330029 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 55 (2) ◽

pp. 105-112 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Charles Clifton ◽

Lyn Frazier

Keyword(s):

Context Effects ◽

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

Linguistic Inquiry ◽

10.1162/ling_a_00289 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 49 (4) ◽

pp. 781-812 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Hadas Kotek ◽

Matthew Barros

Keyword(s):

Common Ground ◽

Scalar Implicatures ◽

Truth Conditional ◽

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.

Sloppy identity unbound

Semantics and Linguistic Theory ◽

10.3765/salt.v23i0.2678 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 23 ◽

pp. 412 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Ezra Keshet

Keyword(s):

Good People ◽

Relation Model ◽

Coherence Relation ◽

Previous Sentence ◽

The Way ◽

Presidential Debate

Reinhart (1983) claims that only pronouns whose antecedents c-command them may give rise to sloppy identity readings. This paper presents counterexamples to this claim; for instance, referring to the famous 1960 televised presidential debate, it is acceptable to say: "Kennedy looked good. People voted for him. Nixon looked bad. People didn't." Despite the fact that the antecedent "Kennedy" for the pronoun "him" is in a previous sentence, this pronoun allows a sloppy identity reading wherein the fourth sentence ("People didn't.") means that people didn't vote for Nixon. To analyze such cases, I first propose an extension to the ~ focus operator due to Rooth (1992), allowing this operator to alter the assignment function used to interpret pronouns. One construction where Rooth places ~ is in the answers to questions. My new meaning for ~ explains why pronouns are so constrained in answers, e.g., "Who does John like? He[=John] likes Mary." Next, I argue for the Question-Under-Discussion (QUD) model of discourse described in Roberts (1996), which theorizes that every sentence is the answer to an explicit or implicit question. Finally, I show that unbound sloppy identity can be analyzed as cases where pronouns are constrained by antecedents in implicit questions. Along the way, I argue that the QUD model is compatible with the coherence relation model of discourse due to Hobbs (1979), explaining how coherence can constrain pronoun reference as well.

Sloppy identity unbound

Semantics and Linguistic Theory ◽

10.3765/salt.v0i0.2678 ◽

2015 ◽

pp. 412

Author(s):

Ezra Keshet

Keyword(s):

Good People ◽

Relation Model ◽

Coherence Relation ◽

Previous Sentence ◽

The Way ◽

Presidential Debate

Reinhart (1983) claims that only pronouns whose antecedents c-command them may give rise to sloppy identity readings. This paper presents counterexamples to this claim; for instance, referring to the famous 1960 televised presidential debate, it is acceptable to say: "Kennedy looked good. People voted for him. Nixon looked bad. People didn't." Despite the fact that the antecedent "Kennedy" for the pronoun "him" is in a previous sentence, this pronoun allows a sloppy identity reading wherein the fourth sentence ("People didn't.") means that people didn't vote for Nixon. To analyze such cases, I first propose an extension to the ~ focus operator due to Rooth (1992), allowing this operator to alter the assignment function used to interpret pronouns. One construction where Rooth places ~ is in the answers to questions. My new meaning for ~ explains why pronouns are so constrained in answers, e.g., "Who does John like? He[=John] likes Mary." Next, I argue for the Question-Under-Discussion (QUD) model of discourse described in Roberts (1996), which theorizes that every sentence is the answer to an explicit or implicit question. Finally, I show that unbound sloppy identity can be analyzed as cases where pronouns are constrained by antecedents in implicit questions. Along the way, I argue that the QUD model is compatible with the coherence relation model of discourse due to Hobbs (1979), explaining how coherence can constrain pronoun reference as well.