Response particles as propositional anaphors

Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 23:1-18. (2013)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The paper explains response particles like yes and no as anaphoric elements that pick up propositional discourse referents that are introduced by preceding sentences. It is argued that negated antecedent clauses introduce two propositional discourse referents, which results in ambiguities of answers that are partly resolved by pragmatic optimization. The paper also discusses response particles like okay, right, uh-huh, uh-uh, and German ja, nein and doch.

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,774

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

My notes

Similar books and articles

Propositional anaphors.Peter van Elswyk - 2019 - Philosophical Studies 176 (4):1055-1075.
"That"-clauses and propositional anaphors.Peter van Elswyk - 2020 - Philosophical Studies 177 (10):2861-2875.
Semantics: sentence and information structure.Paul Portner, Claudia Maienborn & Klaus von Heusinger (eds.) - 2019 - Boston: De Gruyter.
Partial Dynamic Semantics for Anaphora: Compositionality without Syntactic Coindexation.Dag Trygve Truslew Haug - 2014 - Journal of Semantics 31 (4):fft008.
Modality, presupposition and discourse.Patrícia Amaral & Fabio Del Prete - forthcoming - In Del Rosario Juanito, Ornelas de Avelar Juanito & Lazzarin Letizia (eds.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Navigating joint projects with dialogue.Adrian Bangerter & Herbert H. Clark - 2003 - Cognitive Science 27 (2):195-225.
Grounding with particles.Ahmad Jabbar & Veda Kanamarlapudi - forthcoming - In Ahmad Jabbar & Veda Kanamarlapudi (eds.), Proceedings of the 27th workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (SemDial 27).
Investigation into the linguistic category membership of the Finnish planning particle tota.Minna Kirjavainen & Alexandre Nikolaev - 2022 - Pragmatics and Cognition 29 (2):370-393.
Scalar implicatures with discourse referents: a case study on plurality inferences.Yasutada Sudo - 2023 - Linguistics and Philosophy 46 (5):1161-1217.
Varieties of update.Sarah E. Murray - 2014 - Semantics and Pragmatics 7 (2):1--53.

Analytics

Added to PP
2017-03-03

Downloads
48 (#104,651)

6 months
9 (#1,260,759)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

Assertion remains strong.Peter van Elswyk & Matthew A. Benton - 2023 - Philosophical Studies 180 (1):27-50.
The Dynamics of Argumentative Discourse.Carlotta Pavese & Alexander W. Kocurek - 2022 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 51 (2):413-456.
The Semantics and Pragmatics of Argumentation.Carlotta Pavese - 2022 - In Daniel Altshuler (ed.), Linguistics Meets Philosophy. New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.
The structure of communicative acts.Sarah E. Murray & William B. Starr - 2020 - Linguistics and Philosophy 44 (2):425-474.
Reductionism about understanding why.Insa Lawler - 2016 - Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 116 (2):229-236.

View all 13 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

Belief in discourse representation theory.Nicholas Asher - 1986 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 15 (2):127 - 189.
Presuppositions and anaphors in attitude contexts.Bart Geurts - 1998 - Linguistics and Philosophy 21 (6):545-601.
The optimization of discourse anaphora.David I. Beaver - 2004 - Linguistics and Philosophy 27 (1):3-56.
Superlative Quantifiers as Modifiers of Meta-Speech Acts.Ariel Cohen & Manfred Krifka - 2011 - The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication 6:11.

View all 10 references / Add more references