权益分类	功能权益	普通用户	{{item.name}}会员
{{category.name}}	{{benefitItem.name}}

Semantic Constraints on Interrogative Embedding

疑问嵌入的语义约束

基本信息

批准号：
314523601
负责人：
Professor Dr. Clemens Steiner-Mayr
金额：
--
依托单位：
Seminar für Englische Philologie
依托单位国家：
德国
项目类别：
Research Grants
财政年份：
2016
资助国家：
德国
起止时间：
2015-12-31 至 2020-12-31
项目状态：
已结题

来源：
https://gepris.dfg.de/gepris/projekt/314523601?language=en
关键词：
Semantic Constraints Interrogative Embedding

项目摘要

Most languages embed both declarative and interrogative clauses. For example, English 'know' and 'believe' in 'John knows / believes that Mary smokes' embed the declarative 'that Mary smokes'. But only 'know' in 'John knows / *believes who smokes' can embed the interrogative 'who smokes'. In theoretical linguistics, Grimshaw (1979, Linguistic Inquiry) accounted for such data by postulating 's-selection'. This is a lexical specification of predicates as to what type of clause they combine with. This view has been widely adopted and basically stands till today. Adger & Quer (2001, Language), however, point out a difficulty for this approach (cf. Eckardt 2007, in On Information Structure, Meaning and Form). For instance, 'be certain' only combines with an interrogative when it is negated: 'John isn't / *is certain who smokes'. But it is not obvious how the linguistic context can influence the lexically determined s-selection property of 'be certain'. In response to this problem, this project explores a novel way of viewing embedded interrogatives: I investigate whether they are similar to negative polarity items like any and whether their distribution is therefore similarly constrained. Specifically, a compositional semantics based on a grammatical notion of pragmatics (Fox 2007, in Presupposition and Implicature in Compositional Semantics, Chierchia 2013, Logic in Grammar) distinguishes between the cases where `be certain' cannot embed interrogatives and those cases where it can: a contradiction and thus unacceptability arises without negation, but not so with negation. This offers a new perspective on interrogative embedding. It is no longer predicates alone which can be said to allow for or to resist interrogative embedding, but rather, it is whole linguistic contexts. Specifically, the combination of the lexical semantics of a predicate and the so-called polarity property of the sentence it appears in both affect interrogative embedding. As a consequence s-selection can be eliminated. This view accounts for many facts that have so far resisted a principled explanation. In order to achieve this, the project carefully investigates how the lexical semantics of predicates affects interrogative embedding. For instance, the factivity of `know' ensures that interrogatives can be embedded regardless of polarity. The neg-raising property of `believe', however, does the exact opposite. The project furthermore explores linguistic contexts beyond negation and how they affect the embedding of interrogatives. This is shown to, for instance, cast light on the hitherto puzzling interpretive properties of communication verbs like tell when embedding interrogatives. In order to critically evaluate the suggested system, a cross-linguistic investigation of interrogative embedding is part of the project. Combining these lines of investigation, the project culminates in a novel unified semantics for declarative and interrogative clause embedding.

大多数语言都嵌入了陈述句和疑问句。例如，英语中的“know”和“believe”在“John knows / believes that玛丽smokes”中嵌入了陈述句“that玛丽smokes”。但是只有“John knows / *believes who smokes”中的“know”才能嵌入疑问句“who smokes”。在理论语言学中，Grimshaw（1979，Linguistic Inquiry）通过假设“s-选择”来解释这些数据。这是谓词与哪种类型的子句组合的词法规范，联合收割机。这一观点被广泛接受，并基本上保持至今。然而，Adger & Quer（2001，Language）指出了这种方法的一个困难（参见：Eckardt 2007，On Information Structure，Meaning and Form）。例如，“be certain”只有在否定时才与疑问句结合：“John isn’t/ *is certain who smokes”。但是语境如何影响be certainly的s-选择属性并不明显。针对这个问题，本项目探索了一种新的方式来查看嵌入式疑问句：我调查他们是否类似于任何负极性项目，以及他们的分布是否因此受到类似的约束。具体而言，基于语用学语法概念的组合语义学（Fox 2007，在组合语义学中的预设和含义，Chierchia 2013，语法中的逻辑）区分了“确定”不能嵌入疑问句的情况和可以嵌入疑问句的情况：矛盾和不可接受性在没有否定的情况下出现，但在否定的情况下并非如此。这为研究疑问句嵌入提供了一个新的视角。不再仅仅是谓词允许或抵制疑问句的嵌入，而是整个语言语境。具体来说，谓语的词汇语义和它所出现的句子的所谓极性属性的结合都会影响疑问句的嵌入。因此，s-选择可以被消除。这一观点解释了许多迄今为止无法用原则性解释的事实。为了实现这一点，该项目仔细研究了谓词的词汇语义如何影响疑问嵌入。例如，“知道”的事实性确保了疑问句可以被嵌入，而不管极性如何。然而，“相信”的“提升”属性却恰恰相反。该项目进一步探讨了否定之外的语言语境以及它们如何影响疑问句的嵌入。例如，这表明，投光迄今令人困惑的解释属性的通信动词，如告诉时嵌入疑问。为了批判性地评估所建议的系统，跨语言调查的疑问嵌入是该项目的一部分。结合这些调查路线，该项目最终在一个新的声明和疑问句嵌入统一的语义。