Response particles as propositional anaphors

Krifka, Manfred

doi:10.3765/salt.v0i0.2676

Cited by 11 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Proponents of the anaphor approaches argue that response particles are propositional anaphors (Krifka 2013, Roelofsen & Farkas 2015. The anaphor approaches explicitly address the German response system, which is the topic of the present investigation.…”

Section: Early Accessmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Section 2 provides a detailed description of the German response particle system, a detailed explication of the anaphor approaches proposed by Roelofsen & Farkas (2015) and by Krifka (2013), as well as a description of the ellipsis accounts by Kramer & Rawlins (2011) and Holmberg (2015). Section 3 reports four experiments that were designed to evaluate the empirical validity of the two anaphor approaches and to provide the first systematic investigation of acceptability patterns for German response particles.…”

Section: Early Accessmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Puzzling response particles: An experimental study on the German answering system

Claus

Meijer

Repp

et al. 2017

S&P

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Early Accessmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Early Accessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Puzzling response particles: An experimental study on the German answering system

Claus

Meijer

Repp

et al. 2017

S&P

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…• The deletion account of polarity fragments can be taken as indirect evidence for a deletion account of responding particles, contra Farkas and Roelofsen (2013) and Krifka (2013), at least to the extent that isolated responding particles can be analyzed as polarity fragments modulo topicalization.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Language Use and Linguistic Structure

Emonds¹,

Janebová²

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OLOMOUC MODERN LANGUAGE SERIES (OMLS) publishes peer-reviewed proceedings from selected conferences on linguistics, literature, and translation studies held at Palacký University, Olomouc, Czech Republic. AcknowledgementsThe editors are indebted to all those who have helped make this monograph possible. First and foremost, we would like to thank all the authors for both their enthusiastic participation in the conference and their cooperation in the editorial process. We would also like to express gratitude to our colleagues and students from the Philosophical Faculty of Palacký University, Olomouc, for their efforts related to the organization of the OLINCO 2013 conference and the subsequent publishing activities. We greatly appreciate the assistance of Simon Gill, Markéta Gregorová, Eva Nováková, and Jeffrey Parrot, without whose tireless devotion to the editing work the monograph would never have come into existence. Apart from the support of the Department of English and American Studies, the Philosophical Faculty and Palacký University, all of which were indispensable, we have also benefited from the generous support of ESF grant CZ.1.07/2.3.00/20.0061 (Language Diversity and Communication), financed by the European Union and the Czech Republic. This grant was used to cover a substantial part of the financial costs of the conference in situ, as well as the demanding editing and publishing process.And finally we would like to express our immense gratitude to all the reviewers who devotedly participated in the process of accepting and reviewing the papers for the conference and later another round of the peer-reviewing process for the proceedings. Special thanks are also due to Professor Jürgen Weissenborn of Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany, for the overall review of the proceedings. Joseph Emonds Markéta Janebová IntroductionThe articles in this volume are based on papers and posters presented at the Olomouc Linguistics Colloquium (OLINCO) at Palacký University in the Czech Republic in June 2013. This conference welcomed papers that combined analyses of language structure with generalizations about language use. The essays here represent, we think, the best of the conference contributions (together with those selected among them for a separate themed monograph entitled Nominal Structures: All in Complex DPs). All these papers have been doubly reviewed, with one reviewer always external to Palacký University, and revised on the basis of these reviews.The sections of this volume roughly represent the different sections for papers presented at OLINCO, but the groupings in the Table of Contents have been determined, in the final analysis, by their subject matter rather than by a priori "areas." Because the papers on noun phrase structure have been grouped in a separate volume, the grammatical essays appearing here focus on the verb phrase and clausal structure, and have then been divided according to which of these latter two domains figures more prominently in any given paper. Grammar of the Left Peripher...

show abstract

“…The mechanisms that underlie direct assent/dissent are themselves anaphoric: response particles, which have been argued to be anaphoric (Murray 2010;Krifka 2013;Roelofsen & Farkas 2015), and other propositional anaphors like that (e.g., in That's not true). The direct dissent tests explicitly rely upon the anaphoric nature of the response particles, identifying the antecedent content (Diagnostic #1a) and looking for inconsistencies between the antecedent content and explicit follow-up material (Diagnostics #1b,c).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This difference is easy to miss in the presentation of the diagnostics in Tonhauser 2012, where two of the three question/answer tests are demonstrated with examples that make use of response particles. The Guaraní follow-ups begin with heẽ 'yes' or nahániri 'no', and if these response particles work like those of other languages (i.e., those discussed in Krifka 2013;Roelofsen & Farkas 2015) The responses in (12a) and (12b), which morphologically agree with the tense of the question's matrix clause, are felicitous answers to the question, suggesting that the question's matrix clause content establishes a QUD to be addressed (and so is at-issue). The responses in (12c) and (12d), meanwhile, which agree with the question's appositive, are infelicitous, suggesting that the question's appositive content is not-at-issue, as it does not establish a QUD.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

At-issueness != anaphoric availability

Snider

2017

Proc Ling Soc Amer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The at-issue status of a proposition and its availability for anaphora have been tightly linked in the literature (e.g., Tonhauser 2012; Syrett & Koev 2014). In particular, a frequently used diagnostic for at-issueness crucially relies on propositional anaphora. I argue that two different QUD-based diagnostics from Tonhauser 2012-which do not rely on anaphora-more reliably identify at-issueness. I use these diagnostics to show that neither at-issueness nor availability for anaphora reliably determine one another.

show abstract

Response particles as propositional anaphors

Cited by 11 publications

References 4 publications

Puzzling response particles: An experimental study on the German answering system

Puzzling response particles: An experimental study on the German answering system

Language Use and Linguistic Structure

At-issueness != anaphoric availability

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About