Ross Godfrey (Ph.D.) leading a group discussion of: Chandlee, Jane (2017). Computational locality in morphological maps. Morphology, 27, 599–641.
Friday, January 24, 10:00 AM - 11:30 AM in SS 4043: Psycholinguistics Group
Jade Lei Yu (Ph.D., Department of Computer Science) and John Xu (Ph.D., Department of Computer Science), making two presentations: "How nouns surface as verbs: A generative framework for word class conversion" and "Prototype theory and meaning change in the semantic field of emotion."
Friday, January 24, 1:15 PM - 2:45 PM in SS 560A: Semantics Research Group
Heather Stephens (Ph.D.): "Yeah, no, that was implied: Targeting non-asserted propositions with propositional anaphors."
Most contemporary treatments of polarity particles agree that these expressions are in some sense anaphoric to propositions (e.g., Krifka 2015, Roelofsen and Farkas 2015). When two particles of opposing polarity are used in a single response, as in (1), several questions arise, including: exactly which propositions are the particles picking up? How can such responses be modelled? I will provide some thoughts in response to these questions, using the framework laid out by Roelofsen and Farkas (2015) as the point of departure:
(1) Dorothy: [We’ve got] to do this shopping Peter.Peter: Yeah, no it’s alright nanna, we’ve got 5 minutes. (Burridge and Florey 2002).
No comments:
Post a Comment