The Interactive Stance

Ginzburg, Jonathan

doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199697922.001.0001

Cited by 282 publications

(97 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…He got introduced to the first lady. Then, just as for anaphoric salience, the effect of recency of mention on the relative salience of proposals postulated by Ginzburg (2012) helps explain the greater deniability of the supplement in (40a) in comparison to the one in (40c).…”

Section: :17mentioning

confidence: 92%

“…In this respect, this account breaks with many others because it decouples supplement projection from at-issueness: a supplement may project independently of whether or not it addresses the question under discussion (QUD, Simons et al 2010, Ginzburg 2012, Roberts 2012a. Whether a supplement projects is, as a result, just an epiphenomenon of its anchor's scope.…”

Section: Supplemental Updatementioning

confidence: 94%

“…In (40a), the proposal that Lance was at the White House can be readily challenged by No, he wasn't, whereas in (40b) and (40c), the follow-up No he wasn't; they met in a restaurant seems to be required to clarify that it is the supplement that is being challenged. Thinking of an utterance containing a supplement as constituting a series of separate proposals, Ginzburg's (2012) analysis of denials as targeting the most salient proposition in the discourse context explains the difference in deniability between utterance-final and utterance-medial supplements. Extending Ginzburg's analysis to the case of supplements, the proposal corresponding to the supplement in (40a) is more salient than the ones in (40b) and (40c) because it occurs more recently.…”

Section: Anaphora and Deniabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this account, following AnderBois, Brasoveanu & Henderson (2010, Ginzburg (2012), Koev (2012), and Schlenker (2013b), a proposal's recency figures into its susceptibility to direct denial (cf. (40)).…”

Section: :36mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, this account does not provide a formal implementation of salience in the semantics because it involves so many factors besides recency: the discourse context, world knowledge, default assumptions, syntactic features, etc. It also seems likely that more general discourse processes partly influence which proposals can be easily targeted for denial, such as the notions of relevance to a QUD developed by Simons et al (2010) and Ginzburg (2012).…”

Section: Scott Martinmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Supplemental update

Martin

2017

Semantics and Pragmatics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Supplements have often been characterized as inert with respect to other content. But under closer scrutiny, the data shows that supplements can take scope and participate in anaphoric links, undermining multidimensional accounts of them. I argue that the core empirical facts pertaining to supplements, including projection, can in many cases be accounted for by more general, independently motivated factors such as anaphora resolution in discourse and quantifier scope preferences. Importantly, supplement projection is decoupled from at-issueness, with projection arising instead as an epiphenomenon of various external influences.The account is formalized in a dynamic, compositional, and unidimensional semantics that allows anaphoric links to and from supplement content. Since supplements are modeled as a kind of quantifier phrase modifier, scope interactions with semantic operators are captured without further stipulation. When a supplement takes widest scope, it constitutes a separate at-issue proposal, enabling both supplement projection and (non)deniability. The formal machinery requires no additional rules or representation layers except for the dynamic meaning of the comma intonation, which demarcates a supplement from its surrounding content.

show abstract

Section: :17mentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Supplemental Updatementioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Anaphora and Deniabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%