We propose a unifying analysis of two readings – exclusive and approximative – of the Hebrew particle be-sax ha-kol, arguing that under both the particle is a scalar focus sensitive exclusive, ...expressing a positive and a negative inference, i.e. the truth of its prejacent and the exclusion of stronger focus alternatives, respectively. The difference between the readings is argued to derive from a minimal difference in the overtness vs. covertness of the focus associate of be-sax ha-kol: Whereas the exclusive reading is standardly derived by associating the particle with overt and prosodically marked material, the approximative reading results from its association with the covert pos modifier of gradable expressions, resulting in an “x is pos A, but not maximally A” inference.We show that this approximative reading is only licensed when the scale associated with the gradable expression is upper-bound, but the standard of comparison is not necessarily maximal, pace Kennedy & McNally (2005), and compare it with the effects of true approximators (like more or less). We also observe that relative to only and to the exclusive reading of be-sax ha-kol, the at-issueness status of the positive and negative components in the approximative reading is reversed, being at-issue vs. not-at-issue, respectively. We discuss this observation in light of claims about the mirror imaged status of components of only vs. p-exh in Bassi et al. (2019), and in light of theories arguing for the gradience of at-issueness status and its sensitivity to information structure (e.g. Abrusán 2011; Tonhauser et al. 2018).
In this paper, I argue that while truth-conditional semantics in generative linguistics provides lots of good semantic explanations, truth-conditions do not play an important role in these ...explanations. That is, the fact that expressions have the particular truthconditional contents (extensions or intensions) they have does not even partly explain facts about semantic phenomena. Rather, explanations of semantic phenomena appeal to extra-truth-conditional properties attributed to expressions via their lexical entries. Focusing on recent truth-conditional work on gradable adjectives and degree modifiers by Kennedy and McNally (Language 81:345-381, 2005), I show that the best explanations of semantic anomaly and entailment for these expressions are nontruth-conditional—they do not depend on the fact that these expressions have the truth-conditional contents they have. I then provide reasons for thinking that the point generalizes beyond gradable adjectives and degree modifiers to other expressions, and beyond anomaly and entailment to other semantic phenomena. Truth-conditional content, generally, is extrasemantic.
► We examine linguistic behavior of maximizers and approximators. ► These modifiers should combine with absolute adjectives, but not with relative ones. ► Also, an adjective modifier combination ...should show a stable rating across contexts. ► However, the same combination is judged differently in different contexts. ► Therefore, linguistic behavior does not allow for a classification of adjectives.
Respondents are more likely to disagree with negative survey questions (
This text is boring.
Yes/
No) than to agree with positive ones (
This text is interesting.
Yes/
No). The size of this effect, however, varies largely between word pairs. A semantic classification of adjectives in closed scale/absolute and open scale/relative types was predicted to explain this variation. To classify survey adjectives, a judgment experiment was conducted. Language users (
N
=
173) rated sentences in which an adjective was modified by the maximizer
completely or the approximator
almost: it should be possible to combine closed scale/absolute adjectives with these modifiers, in contrast to open scale/relative adjectives for which this is not the case.
Results show that language users agree on which adjective and degree modifier combinations are acceptable and which combinations are unacceptable. Moreover, the two methods,
almost and
fully, show convergent validity. However, the rating of the same combination of a specific adjective and a specific degree modifier varies across contexts. This suggests that neither of the two methods allows for an unambiguous classification of adjectives. Hence, the distinction between closed scale/absolute and open scale/relative adjectives cannot explain variation in survey response effects. For semantics and pragmatics results indicate that context plays a crucial role in the linguistic behavior of adjectives and degree modifiers.
Artikkelissa käsitellään oppimisympäristön vaikutusta astemääritteiden käyttöön. Astemääritteet ovat jonkin ominaisuuden asteen suurta, kohtalaista tai vähäistä määrää ilmaisevia, pragmaattista ...merkitystä kantavia adverbeja (esim. melko, hyvin, tosi). Oppimisympäristön vaikutusta käsitellään artikkelissa korpusten avulla. Vaikka tällä hetkellä käytössä olevat oppijansuomen aineistot eivät ole täysin vertailukelpoisia keskenään esimerkiksi tekstien tehtävänantojen suhteen, voidaan niiden avulla tehdä alustavia havaintoja oppimiskontekstin vaikutuksesta ja edelleen hypoteeseja tulevia tutkimuksia varten. Oppimiskontekstilla tarkoitetaan tässä tutkimuksessa sitä ympäristöä, jossa kieltä opitaan: kielenoppimista kohdekulttuurin ulkopuolella (vieraana kielenä) tai kohdekulttuurissa (toisena kielenä). Aiemmassa tutkimuksessa on esitetty havaintoja, että oppimiskonteksti vaikuttaa oppimiseen, mutta myös vastakkaisia ajatuksia on tuotu esiin. Tutkimuksen menetelmällisenä lähtökohtana on avainsana-analyysi ja aineistona käytetään neljää korpusta (Kansainvälinen oppijansuomen korpus, Yleisten kielitutkintojen korpus, Käännössuomen korpus ja Suomen kielen tekstikokoelma), joiden hakutuloksia täydennetään internet-hauilla. Ensiksi mainittu aineisto sisältää vieraana kielenä -aineistoa, toinen toisena kielenä -aineistoa ja kolme viimeistä kuvaavat kohdekielistä kielenkäyttöä. Tutkimustulokset eivät anna yksiselitteistä kuvaa astemääritteiden käytöstä: Ensiksikin tulokset tukevat aiempia havaintoja siitä, että oppijan käyttävät astemääritteitä paljon, mutta erityisesti ne ovat suomea Suomessa opiskelevien suosiossa. Toisaalta kohdekulttuurissa opiskelevien astemääritekirjo osoittautuu kapeammaksi. Molemmilla ryhmillä on lisäksi käytössä ns. leksikaalisia nallekarhuja (engl. lexical teddy bears), mutta nämä ovat osin erilaisia ryhmittäin. Astemääritteiden käyttö on sidoksissa syntagmaattisiin kombinaatioihin ja tilannekontekstiin, ja osoittautuu, että molempien ryhmien oppijat tuottavat jossain määrin fraseologisia tai rekistereihin liittyviä epätyypillisyyksiä.
This paper argues that degree modifiers such as flat-out, downright, positively, and straight-up constitute a distinct natural class specialized for modifying extreme adjectives (such as gigantic, ...fantastic, or gorgeous), and that extreme adjectives themselves come in two varieties: ones that encode extremeness as part of their lexical semantics and ones that can acquire it on the basis of contextual factors. These facts suggest that a theory is required of what it means for an adjective to be 'extreme' in the relevant sense. I propose one, based on the idea that in any given context, we restrict our attention to a particular salient portion of a scale. To reflect this, I suggest that quantification over degrees is—like quantification in other domains—contextually restricted. Extreme adjectives and corresponding degree modifiers can thus both be understood as a means of signaling that a degree lies outside a contextually-provided range.
When phenotypic characters are described in the literature, they may be constrained or clarified with additional information such as the location or degree of expression, these terms are called ..."modifiers". With effort underway to convert narrative character descriptions to computable data, ontologies for such modifiers are needed. Such ontologies can also be used to guide term usage in future publications. Spatial and method modifiers are the subjects of ontologies that already have been developed or are under development. In this work, frequency (e.g., rarely, usually), certainty (e.g., probably, definitely), degree (e.g., slightly, extremely), and coverage modifiers (e.g., sparsely, entirely) are collected, reviewed, and used to create two modifier ontologies with different design considerations. The basic goal is to express the sequential relationships within a type of modifiers, for example, usually is more frequent than rarely, in order to allow data annotated with ontology terms to be classified accordingly.
Two designs are proposed for the ontology, both using the list pattern: a closed ordered list (i.e., five-bin design) and an open ordered list design. The five-bin design puts the modifier terms into a set of 5 fixed bins with interval object properties, for example, one_level_more/less_frequently_than, where new terms can only be added as synonyms to existing classes. The open list approach starts with 5 bins, but supports the extensibility of the list via ordinal properties, for example, more/less_frequently_than, allowing new terms to be inserted as a new class anywhere in the list. The consequences of the different design decisions are discussed in the paper. CharaParser was used to extract modifiers from plant, ant, and other taxonomic descriptions. After a manual screening, 130 modifier words were selected as the candidate terms for the modifier ontologies. Four curators/experts (three biologists and one information scientist specialized in biosemantics) reviewed and categorized the terms into 20 bins using the Ontology Term Organizer (OTO) (http://biosemantics.arizona.edu/OTO). Inter-curator variations were reviewed and expressed in the final ontologies.
Frequency, certainty, degree, and coverage terms with complete agreement among all curators were used as class labels or exact synonyms. Terms with different interpretations were either excluded or included using "broader synonym" or "not recommended" annotation properties. These annotations explicitly allow for the user to be aware of the semantic ambiguity associated with the terms and whether they should be used with caution or avoided. Expert categorization results showed that 16 out of 20 bins contained terms with full agreements, suggesting differentiating the modifiers into 5 levels/bins balances the need to differentiate modifiers and the need for the ontology to reflect user consensus. Two ontologies, developed using the Protege ontology editor, are made available as OWL files and can be downloaded from https://github.com/biosemantics/ontologies.
We built the first two modifier ontologies following a consensus-based approach with terms commonly used in taxonomic literature. The five-bin ontology has been used in the Explorer of Taxon Concepts web toolkit to compute the similarity between characters extracted from literature to facilitate taxon concepts alignments. The two ontologies will also be used in an ontology-informed authoring tool for taxonomists to facilitate consistency in modifier term usage.
Intensification is a means of indexing the speakers’ perspective. This paper attempts to show the semantic development of particular intensifiers following Langacker’s framework of subjectivity. In ...this framework, the focus lies on the way the conceptualizer construes an event or a situation as an observer or as an experiencer with degrees of control over it. Although this is a synchronic description, it also reflects diachronic findings.
Degree Modification of Extreme Adjectives Morzycki, Marcin
Papers from the regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society,
01/2009, Letnik:
45, Številka:
1
Journal Article
Recenzirano
This paper argues that degree modifiers such as flat-out, downright, positively, and straight-up constitute a distinct natural class specialized for modifying extreme adjectives (such as gigantic, ...fantastic, or gorgeous), and that extreme adjectives themselves come in two varieties:
ones that encode extremeness as part of their lexical meaning and ones that can acquire it on the basis of contextual factors. These facts suggest that a theory is required of adjectival 'extremeness' itself. I propose one, based on the idea that in any given context, we restrict
our attention to a particular salient portion of a scale. To reflect this, I suggest that quantification over degrees is-like quantification in other domains-contextually restricted. Extreme adjectives and corresponding degree modifiers can thus both be understood as a means of expressing
domain-widening for degrees.
In this paper, I develop a composite methodology for handling and visualizing measures of significant attraction between lexical items in a set of near-synonyms. I aim to uncover revealing aspects of ...the conceptual structure of four English moderators (rather, quite, fairly, and pretty) and shed new light on previous studies on degree modifiers. This methodology combines univariate and multivariate statistics. Collexemes are used as input for hierarchical agglomerative cluster analysis, and multiple distinctive collexemes are used as input for correspondence analysis.
PDF
