• Corpus ID: 34973629

Surprise for Lauri Karttunen ∗

@inproceedings{Roelofsen2017SurpriseFL,
  title={Surprise for Lauri Karttunen ∗},
  author={Floris Roelofsen},
  year={2017}
}
This paper is written in honor of Lauri Karttunen’s seminal contributions to formal semantics, in particular his work on discourse referents (Karttunen, 1969), presuppositions (Karttunen, 1973, 1974) and questions (Karttunen, 1977). The present paper is connected to all these lines of work, suggesting that a long-standing issue concerning question embedding verbs like surprise, raised in Karttunen (1977), can be resolved by assuming that such verbs involve a presupposition that is sensitive to… 
A Uniform Semantics for Declarative and Interrogative Complements
TLDR
A semantics for declarative and interrogative complements and for so-called responsive verbs, like know and forget, which embed both kinds of complements, which assumes a single lexical entry for each responsive verb.
The *hope-wh puzzle
TLDR
This paper puts forward a similar semantic explanation for non-veridical preferential predicates such as hope, which are anti-rogative, unlike their veridical counterparts such as be happy, who are responsive.
Deriving selectional restrictions of clause-embedding predicates ∗
It is a long-standing puzzle why verbs like believe embed declarative but not interrogative complements (e.g., Bill believes that/*whether Mary left), while verbs like wonder embed interrogative but
Picky predicates: why believe doesn’t like interrogative complements, and other puzzles
TLDR
This paper shows how the selectional restrictions of a range of predicates can be derived from semantic assumptions that can be independently motivated.
Polarity sensitivity of question embedding: experimental evidence
TLDR
It is found that judgments for be certain whether do not correlate with judgments on NPIs, which suggests that be certainWhether and NPIs are in fact licensed by different mechanisms.
UvA-DARE ( Digital Academic Repository ) Polarity sensitivity of question embedding : experimental evidence
Attitude predicates can be classified by the kinds of complements they can embed: declaratives, interrogatives or both. However, several authors have claimed that predicates like be certain can only
Taking a unified perspective : Resolutions and highlighting in the semantics of attitudes and particles
TLDR
This dissertation develops semantic accounts of a range of expressions that enable semantic accounts that unify the declarative and interrogative case using unified notions of semantic content.

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 65 REFERENCES
Surprise-predicates, strong exhaustivity and alternative questions
Factive emotive verbs like surprise and disappoint disallow the strongly exhaustive reading of wh-questions and do not embed alternative questions (nor polar questions) (Guerzoni & Sharvit 2007;
A Uniform Semantics for Declarative and Interrogative Complements
TLDR
A semantics for declarative and interrogative complements and for so-called responsive verbs, like know and forget, which embed both kinds of complements, which assumes a single lexical entry for each responsive verb.
Disjunctive Questions, Intonation, and Highlighting
TLDR
This paper examines how intonation affects the interpretation of disjunctive questions by assuming that a question proposes several possible updates of the common ground and invites other participants to help establish at least one of these updates.
The *whether Puzzle
TLDR
The present paper is the first to argue that the semantic objects that matrix questions bring into salience are important to understand the role of such questions in discourse and that this aspect of meaning is also crucial for understanding the roles of embedded questions in grammar.
Fragments and ellipsis
TLDR
Fragmentary utterances such as ‘short’ answers and subsentential XPs without linguistic antecedents are proposed to have fully sentential syntactic structures, subject to ellipsis, and these structures shed light on the nature of islands.
On the interpretation of wh-clauses in exclamative environments
TLDR
The following paper evaluates the hypothesis that so called wh-exclamatives in German are of the same semantical type as wh-interrogatives and claims that exclaiming is one way to use a wh-clause.
A Psycholinguistic Study of the Exhaustive Readings of Embedded Questions
TLDR
It is shown that the so-called strongly exhaustive reading is not the only available reading for ‘know’, providing an argument against approaches inspired by Groenendijk and Stokhof (1982, 1984).
A question of strength: on NPIs in interrogative clauses
We observe that the facts pertaining to the acceptability of negative polarity items (henceforth, NPIs) in interrogative environments complex than previously noted. Since Klima [Klima, E. (1964). In
Where Question, Conditionals and Topics Converge
TLDR
An analysis using the basic idea of inquisitive semantics that questions and assertions can be treated on a par as denoting sets of possibilities that contain exactly one highlighted alternative possibility in topic position is provided.
A uniform semantics for embedded interrogatives: an answer, not necessarily the answer
TLDR
If P is a responsive predicate and Q a question embedded under P, then the meaning of ‘P + Q’ is, informally, “to be in the relation expressed by P to some potential complete answer to Q”, and it is shown that this rule allows to derive veridical and non-veridical readings of embedded questions, depending on whether the embedding verb is veridICAL or not.
...
1
2
3
4
5
...