The semantics of question-embedding predicates
The semantics of question-embedding predicates
复制标题
问题嵌入谓词的语义
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2019
影响因子：
2.5
通讯作者：
W. Uegaki
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
W. Uegaki
某些嵌入疑问句的谓词的补充模式，如KNOW和CONNECT，给小句补充的组合语义提出了一个难题，因为这些谓词似乎能够与两种不同类型的语义对象相结合：命题和疑问句。这些谓词的语义的传统方法，其中嵌入的问题被归结为命题，面临着两个问题。首先，它不能解释这样的观察，即KNOW WH句子要求受试者不相信嵌入问题的任何错误答案。其次，它对关联谓词的解释做出了一个有问题的预测，如关怀和物质。我们回顾了命题嵌套谓词语义的三种替代方法，即命题到问题归约、统一方法和歧义方法，认为只有命题到问题归约和统一方法才能处理关联谓词的解释。文章最后评论了问题嵌套谓词的词汇外延是如何受到限制的。
The complementation pattern of certain question‐embedding predicates, such as know and agree, presents a puzzle for the compositional semantics of clausal complementation, as the predicates seem to be able to combine with two distinct types of semantic objects: propositions and questions. The traditional approach to the semantics of these predicates, where embedded questions are reduced to propositions, faces two problems. First, it cannot account for the observation that know‐wh sentences require the subject not to believe any false answer to the embedded question. Second, it makes a problematic prediction concerning the interpretation of Predicates of Relevance, such as care and matter. We review three alternative approaches to the semantics of question‐embedding predicates, i.e., the proposition‐to‐question reduction, the uniform approach and the ambiguity approach, and argue that only the Proposition‐to‐Question reduction and the uniform approach can deal with the interpretation of the Predicates of Relevance. The paper concludes with a remark on how lexical denotations of question‐embedding predicates are constrained in general.
影响因子：
1.1
作者：
Brendan Balcerak Jackson
通讯作者：
Brendan Balcerak Jackson