That’s not quite it: An experimental investigation of (non‑)exhaustivity in clefts
That’s not quite it: An experimental investigation of (non‑)exhaustivity in clefts
复制标题
不完全是这样：对裂缝（非）穷举性的实验研究
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2018
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
M. Zimmermann
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Veaugh;Swantje Tönnis;Edgar Onea;M. Zimmermann
我们提出了一项关于德语的新的实证研究，直接比较了ES分裂中的穷尽性推理与确定的伪词性、排他性和普通语调焦点结构中的穷尽性推理。我们在两个实验中采用了鼠标驱动的验证/证伪任务，采用增量信息提取范式，以评估四种句子类型的穷举强度。这一结果与对唇裂和明确的假性唇裂的平行分析是一致的，与先前文献中的说法一致(Percus1997，Buring&Križ，2013年)。与这类主张形成鲜明对比的是，我们的研究发现，穷举推理通常被编码在分裂结构中的最大程度/同质性，而在ES分裂或确定的伪词中，穷举推理并不系统或稳健：一些说话者认为这两个结构都是穷举的，而另一些人认为这两个结构都是非穷举的。为了解释这一意想不到的发现，我们认为裂隙和确定伪格中的穷举推理--尤其是那些带有复合dejenige的句子--是从两个结构共同的回指存在前提语用上推导出来的。
及早访问
补充材料
We present a novel empirical study on German directly comparing the exhaustivity inference in es -clefts to exhaustivity inferences in definite pseudoclefts, exclusives, and plain intonational focus constructions. We employ mouse-driven verification/falsification tasks in an incremental information-retrieval paradigm across two experiments in order to assess the strength of exhaustivity in the four sentence types. The results are compatible with a parallel analysis of clefts and definite pseudoclefts, in line with previous claims in the literature (Percus 1997, Buring & Križ 2013). In striking contrast with such proposals, in which the exhaustivity inference is conventionally coded in the cleft-structure in terms of maximality/homogeneity, our study found that the exhaustivity inference is not systematic or robust in es -clefts nor in definite pseudoclefts: Whereas some speakers treat both constructions as exhaustive, others treat both constructions as non-exhaustive. In order to account for this unexpected finding, we argue that the exhaustivity inference in both clefts and definite pseudoclefts — specifically those with the compound definite derjenige — is pragmatically derived from the anaphoric existence presupposition that is common to both constructions.
EARLY ACCESS
Supplementary materials