The Meaning Group will meet on Friday February 22, at 1:15pm in Oak Hall 338. We will be discussing the paper “Deontic Modality and the Semantics of Free Choice” be Melissa Fusco (Philosopher’s Imprint 15, 2015). Contact Stefan Kaufmann for the PDF if you have a problem with the link.
The Meaning Group will meet on Friday February 15, at 1:15pm in Oak Hall 338. We will be discussing the paper “Guiding assertions and questions in discourse: Mandarin dique and zhende” by Mengxi Yuan and Yurie Hara (Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. The paper is included below.
The Meaning Group will meet on Friday February 8, at 12:45pm in Oak Hall 308. We will be discussing the paper “Specificational subjects are individual concepts” by Arregi, Francez and Martinovic. The paper is included below.
The Meaning Group will have its first meeting of the semester on Friday January 25, at 12:45pm in Oak Hall 308. We will be discussing the paper “On the projection of the presupposition of embedded questions” by Wataru Uegaki (Proceedings of SALT 28, 2018). The paper is included below.
Yael Sharvit (UCLA Linguistics) will be presenting her work on embedded clauses in Magdalena Kaufmann’s semantics seminar on Monday December 10, 3:30-5:30pm, Oak Hall. Those who are interested in attending are encouraged to contact Magda for details.
The Meaning Group will meet on Friday, December 7, 1-2pm in Oak Hall 338 to discuss the paper “An illocutionary account of reportative evidentials in imperatives” by Scott AnderBois (2017, Proceedings of SALT 27). Note that Scott AnderBois will speak at the Logic Colloquium on the same day at 2pm. This paper is related to the topic of his talk.
At-issueness in direct quotation: the case of Mayan quotatives
Abstract: In addition to verba dicendi, languages have a bunch of different other grammatical devices for encoding reported speech. While not common in Indo-European languages, two of the most common such elements cross-linguistically are reportative evidentials and quotatives. Quotatives have been much less discussed then either verba dicendi or reportatives, both in descriptive/typological literature and especially in formal semantic work. While quotatives haven’t been formally analyzed in detail previously to my knowledge, several recent works on reported speech constructions in general have suggested in passing that they pattern either with verba dicendi or with reportatives. Drawing on data from Yucatec Maya, I argue that they differ from both since they present direct quotation (like verba dicendi) but make a conventional at-issueness distinction (like reportatives). To account for these facts, I develop an account of quotatives by combining an extended Farkas & Bruce 2010-style discourse scoreboard with bicontextualism (building on Eckardt 2014’s work on Free Indirect Discourse).
The Meaning Group will meet on Friday, November 30, 1-2pm in Oak Hall 338 to discuss the paper “Nominal speech act structure” by Elizabeth Ritter and Martina Wiltschko (attached). Note that Martina Wiltschko will speak at the Linguistics Colloquium on the same day at 4pm. This paper is related to the topic of her colloquium talk.
The Meaning Group will meet on Friday, October 12, 1-2pm in Oak Hall 338 to discuss the paper”Division of labor in the interpretation of declaratives and interrogatives” by Donka Farkas and Floris Roelofsen (attached). Note that Donka Farkas will speak at the Linguistics Colloquium on the same day at 4pm. This paper is related to the topic of her colloquium talk.
This talk is part of a larger project whose aims are to understand the difference between canonical and non-canonical questions, and to draw a typology of the latter. The first part of the talk sets up a series of pragmatic assumptions present in canonical questions, assumptions that follow from the semantics and conventional discourse effects of canonical interrogatives. The second part presents a particular type of non-canonical questions, called non-intrusive. Non-intrusive questions signal the absence of one of the pragmatic assumptions associated with canonical questions, namely the assumption of Addressee Compliance, i.e, they signal that the Speaker does not assume that the Addressee will settle the issue in the next move. The case study discussed in detail is that of a special interrogative form in Romanian, namely an interrogative marked by the morpheme oare. In the account to be worked out in the talk, the role of this morpheme is to mark a special conventional discourse effect that affects the projected Addressee responses.