Linguistik-Klassifikation
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (177)
- Article (56)
- Working Paper (37)
- Conference Proceeding (10)
- Report (3)
- Other (1)
- Preprint (1)
Language
- English (285) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (285)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (285)
Keywords
- Englisch (51)
- Semantik (46)
- Syntax (37)
- Formale Semantik (29)
- Metapher (27)
- Bedeutungswandel (18)
- Deutsch (17)
- Informationsstruktur (14)
- Thema-Rhema-Gliederung (12)
- Lexikologie (10)
Institute
We propose a compositional analysis for sentences of the kind "You only have to go to the North End to get good cheese", referred to as the Sufficiency Modal Construction in the recent literature. We argue that the SMC is ambiguous depending on the kind of ordering induced by only. So is the exceptive construction – its cross-linguistic counterpart. Only is treated as inducing either a 'comparative possibility' scale or an 'implication-based' partial order on propositions. The properties of the 'comparative possibility' scale explain the absence of the prejacent presupposition that is usually associated with only. By integrating the scalarity into the semantics of the SMC, we explain the polarity facts observed in both variants of the construction. The sufficiency meaning component is argued to be due to a pragmatic inference.
Judging by appearances : a study of human-oriented metonymic developments in the domain of dress
(2008)
This paper discusses a semantic analysis of three syntactic types of English each, namely, floated each, binominal each, and prenominal each. It is argued that floated each consists of two parts, a quantifier and an inaudible element which functions as its restrictor, which together form a tripartite quantificational structure when they compose with the predicate. Binominal each and an associated NP such as two topics (which is generally called the 'distributive share') are syntactically analyzed as forming a subject-predicate relation within a DP in which the NP undergoes so-called 'predicate inversion'. Semantically, binominal each is analyzed as having the same semantic value as floated each, while prenominal each is shown to have a different logical type from floated and binominal each. As can be seen from analogous constructions in some Romance languages, it does not lexically contain its restrictor.
Old masters and new frameworks : a pilot analysis of selected semantic changes in the field economy
(2003)