Perspective-shifting with appositives and expressives

Linguistics and Philosophy

Volumn 32, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 523-552

  Harris, Jesse A ^a   Potts, Christopher ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS   (United States)

^b STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Appositives; Corpus pragmatics; Experimental pragmatics; Expressives; Perspective; Regression analysis

Indexed keywords

EID: 77951877309     PISSN: 01650157     EISSN: 15730549     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10988-010-9070-5     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Aloni, M. (2000). Quantification under conceptual covers. Ph. D. thesis, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam. Published in the ILLC Dissertation Series, 2001-1.
2. Amaral P., Roberts C., Allyn Smith E. (2007) Review of the logic of conventional implicatures by Chris Potts. Linguistics and Philosophy 30(6): 707-749.
3. Anand P. (2007) Re-expressing judgment. Theoretical Linguistics 33(2): 199-208.
4. Anand, P., & Nevins, A. (2004). Shifty operators in changing contexts. In K. Watanabe & R. B. Young (Eds.), Proceedings of SALT 14 (pp. 20-37). Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.
5. Aoun J., Choueiri L., Hornstein N. (2001) Resumption, movement, and derivational economy. Linguistic Inquiry 32(3): 371-403.
6. Asher N. (2000) Truth conditional discourse semantics for parentheticals. Journal of Semantics 17(1): 31-50.
7. Baayen R. H. (2008) Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
8. Bach K. (1999) The myth of conventional implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy 22(4): 367-421.
9. Bach K. (2006) Review of Christopher Potts, 'The logic of conventional implicatures'. Journal of Linguistics 42(2): 490-495.
10. Beaver D., Clark B. Z. (2008) Sense and sensitivity: How focus determines meaning. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford.
11. Bergler, S. (1992). The evidential analysis of reported speech. Ph. D. thesis, Brandeis University.
12. Boër, S. E., & Lycan, W. G. (1976). The myth of semantic presupposition. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
13. Büring D. (2005) Binding theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
14. Cohen J. (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement 20(1): 37-46.
15. Constant N., Davis C., Potts C., Schwarz F. (2009) The pragmatics of expressive content: Evidence from large corpora. Sprache und Datenverarbeitung 33(1-2): 5-21.
16. F. (2005) On epithets qua attributive anaphors. Journal of Linguistics 41(1): 1-32.
17. Crawley M. J. (2007) The R book. West Sussex, UK, Wiley.
18. Cruse D. A. (1986) Lexical semantics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
19. Culicover P. W. (1992) English tag questions and Universal Grammar. Lingua 88(1): 21-54.
20. de Marneffe, M.-C., Rafferty, A. N., & Manning, C. D. (2008). Finding contradictions in text. In Proceedings of the Association for Computational Linguistics 2008 (pp. 1039-1047). Columbus, OH: Association for Computational Linguistics.
21. Emonds J. E. (1976) A transformational approach to English syntax. Academic Press, New York.
22. Farkas D. F. (1992) On the semantics of subjunctive complements. In: Hirschbühler P. (eds) Romance languages and linguistic theory. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 69-104.
23. Giannakidou A. (1999) Affective dependencies. Linguistics and Philosophy 22(4): 367-421.
24. Giannakidou, A., & Stavrou, M. (2008). On metalinguistic comparatives and negation in Greek. In Greek syntax and semantics. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Linguistics.
25. Godfrey, J. J., & Holliman, E. (1993). Switchboard-1 transcripts. Linguistic Data Consortium, Philadelphia.
26. Harris J. A. (2009) Epithets and perspective shift: Experimental evidence. In: Biezma M., Harris J. A. (eds) University of Massachussets occasional papers in linguistics: Papers in pragmatics (Vol. 39). Amherst MA, GLSA Publishing.
27. Harris, J. A., & Potts, C. (2009). Predicting perspectival orientation for appositives. In Proceedings from the 45th annual meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (Vol. 45). Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.
28. Huddleston R., Pullum G. K. (2002) The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
29. Jaeger T. F. (2008) Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language 59(4): 447-456.
30. Kaplan, D. (1999). What is meaning? Explorations in the theory of Meaning as Use. Brief version-draft 1. Ms., UCLA.
31. Karttunen L. (1973) Presuppositions and compound sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 4(2): 169-193.
32. Karttunen, L., & Zaenen, A. (2005). Veridicity. In G. Katz, J. Pustejovsky, & F. Schilder (Eds.), Annotating, extracting and reasoning about time and events, No. 05151 in Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings. Dagstuhl, Germany: Internationales Begegnungs- und Forschungszentrum für Informatik (IBFI), Schloss Dagstuhl, Germany. http://drops. dagstuhl. de/opus/volltexte/2005/314.
33. Kuno S. (1987) Functional syntax: Anaphora, discourse, and empathy. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
34. Lakoff, G. (1966). Deep and surface grammar. Ms., Harvard University.
35. Lasersohn P. (2005) Context dependence, disagreement, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy 28(6): 643-686.
36. Lewis, D. (1969). Convention. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Reprinted 2002 by Blackwell.
37. Lewis D. (1975) Languages and language. In: Gunderson K. (eds) Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science Vol. VII. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp 3-35.
38. Manning, C. D. (2006). Local textual inference: It's hard to circumscribe, but you know it when you see it-and NLP needs it. Ms., Stanford University.
39. Marcus, M. P., Santorini, B., Marcinkiewicz, M. A., & Taylor, A. (1999). Treebank-3. Linguistic Data Consortium, Philadelphia.
40. McCawley J. D. (1982) Parentheticals and discontinuous structure. Linguistic Inquiry 13(1): 91-106.
41. McCawley, J. D. (1987). Some additional evidence for discontinuity. In G. J. Huck & A. E. Ojeda (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, (vol. 20: Discontinuous Constituency (pp. 185-200). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
42. McCawley J. D. (1989) Individuation in and of syntactic structures. In: Baltin M. R., Kroch A. S. (eds) Alternative conceptions of phrase structure. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 117-138.
43. Miltsakaki, E., Prasad, R., Joshi, A., & Webber, B. (2004). The Penn discourse TreeBank. In Proceedings of the language resources and evaluation conference. Lisbon, Portugal.
44. Oshima, D. (2006). Perspectives in reported discourse. Ph. D. thesis, Stanford University.
45. Pollard C., Sag I. A. (1992) Anaphors in English and the scope of the binding theory. Linguistic Inquiry 23(2): 261-303.
46. Potts C. (2005) The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
47. Potts C. (2007) The expressive dimension. Theoretical Linguistics 33(2): 165-197.
48. Potts, C. (To appear). Conventional implicature and expressive content. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, & P. Portner, (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
49. Potts, C., & Harris, J. A. (2009). Embedded appositives (annotated data). http://christopherpotts. net/ling/data/embeddedappositives/.
50. Potts, C., & Schwarz, F. (2008). Exclamatives and heightened emotion: Extracting pragmatic generalizations from large corpora. Ms., UMass Amherst.
51. Quang P. D. (1971) English sentences without overt grammatical subject. In: Zwicky A. M., Salus P. H., Binnick R. I., Vanek A. L. (eds) Studies out in left field: Defamatory essays presented to James D. McCawley on the occasion of his 33rd or 34th birthday. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 3-10.
52. R Development Core Team. (2008). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. organization R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, http://www. R-project. org/.
53. Ross J. R. (1973) Slifting. In: Gross M., Halle M., Schützenberger M.-P. (eds) The formal analysis of natural languages. Mouton de Gruyter, The Hague, pp 133-169.
54. Sauerland U. (2007) Beyond unpluggability. Theoretical Linguistics 33(2): 231-236.
55. Saurí R., Pustejovsky J. (2009) FactBank: A corpus annotated with event factuality. Language Resources and Evaluation 43(3): 227-268.
56. Schlenker P. (2003) A plea for monsters. Linguistics and Philosophy 26(1): 29-120.
57. Schlenker P. (2007) Expressive presuppositions. Theoretical Linguistics 33(2): 237-245.
58. Simons M. (2007) Observations on embedding verbs, evidentiality, and presupposition. Lingua 117: 1034-1056.
59. Smith C. S. (2009) Accounting for subjectivity (point of view). In: Meier R. P., Aristar-Dry H., Destruel E. (eds) Text, time, and context: Selected papers of Carlota S. Smith, studies in linguistics and philosophy Vol. 89. Springer, The Netherlands, pp 371-393.
60. Taylor K. A. (2007) Misplaced modification and the illusion of opacity. In: O'Rourke M., Washington C. (eds) Situating semantics: Essays on the philosophy of John Perry. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 215-250.
61. von Stechow, A. (2003). Binding by verbs: Tense, person and mood under attitudes. In M. Kadowaki & S. Kawahara (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd north east linguistics society meeting. Amherst, MA: GLSA.
62. Wagner, M. (2004). Asymmetries in the syntax and prosody of verb-intial interpolated clauses in German. In S. Blaho, L. Vincent, & E. Schoorlemmer (Eds.), Proceedings of CONSOLE XII, (pp. 201-215). Leiden: The Student Organization of Linguistics in Europe.
63. Wald A. (1943) Test of statistical hypotheses concerning several parameters when the number of observations is large. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 54(3): 426-482.
64. Wang L., Reese B., McCready E. (2005) The projection problem of nominal appositives. Snippets 10: 13-14.
65. Zaenen, A., Karttunen, L., & Crouch, R. (2005). Local textual inference: Can it be defined or circumscribed? In ACL workshop on empirical modelling of semantic equivalence and entailment. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Computational Linguistics.