Advertisement

Guiding assertions and questions in discourse

Mandarin dique and zhende
  • Mengxi YuanEmail author
  • Yurie Hara
Article
  • 120 Downloads

Abstract

This paper explores how discourse markers contribute to the update of discourse through a detailed study of Mandarin dique ‘indeed’ and zhende ‘really’. On the basis of empirical data and a naturalness rating experiment, we show that dique and zhende make similar yet different contributions to discourse updates. Dique presupposes that its prejacent issue is old, while zhende presupposes that its prejacent issue is old and that some discourse participant has failed to resolve this issue. Furthermore, dique and zhende can embed both assertions and questions. This supports Farkas and Bruce’s (2010) Table stack model, which provides a uniform treatment for assertions and questions.

Keywords

Speech acts Discourse structure Common Ground Table stack Presupposition Mandarin 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are sincerely grateful to the editors and three anonymous reviewers whose feedback on earlier versions has tremendously helped improve this paper. Special thanks are also due to Satoshi Tomioka and Stefan Kaufmann, who introduced us to Farkas and Bruce’s (2010) framework. We are also grateful to Christopher Davis, Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine, Magdalena Kaufmann, Paul S. Law, Po Lun Lee Peppina, Elin McCready, Haihua Pan, Kyle Rawlins, Uli Sauerland and Grégoire Winterstein for their constructive criticism and valuable comments. This research was supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (Grant number 17JNQN007) awarded to Mengxi Yuan and JSPS KAKENHI (C) Grant Number 18K00589 awarded to Yurie Hara.

References

  1. Beaver, David, and Emiel Krahmer. 2001. A partial account of presupposition projection. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 10: 147–182. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blakemore, Diane. 1987. Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  3. Brinton, Laurel J. 1996. Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chernilovskaya, Anna. 2014. Exclamativity in discourse: Exploring the exclamative speech act from a discourse perspective. PhD diss., Utrecht University. Google Scholar
  5. Cohen, Ariel, and Manfred Krifka. 2014. Superlative quantifiers and meta-speech acts. Linguistics and Philosophy 37: 41–90. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coniglio, Marco. 2008. Modal particles in Italian. University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics 18: 91–129. Google Scholar
  7. Coniglio, Marco, and Iulia Zegrean. 2010. Splitting up force evidence from discourse particles. University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics 20: 7–33. Google Scholar
  8. Cowart, Wayne. 1997. Experimental syntax: Applying objective methods to sentence judgments. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Google Scholar
  9. Farkas, Donka F. 2011. Polarity particles in English and Romanian. In Romance linguistics 2010: Selected papers from the 40th linguistic symposium on Romance linguistics, ed. Julia Herschensohn, 303–328. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Farkas, Donka F., and Kim B. Bruce. 2010. On reacting to assertions and polar questions. Journal of Semantics 27 (1): 81–118. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fraser, Bruce. 1996. Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics 6: 167–190. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grosz, Patrick. 2014. German doch: An element that triggers a contrast presupposition. In Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 46, 163–177. Google Scholar
  13. Gunlogson, Christine. 2001. True to form: Rising and falling declaratives as questions in English. PhD diss., University of California Santa Cruz. Google Scholar
  14. Han, Chung Hye. 1998. The structure and interpretation of imperatives: Mood and force in universal grammar. PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania. Google Scholar
  15. Heim, Irene. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. PhD diss., University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Google Scholar
  16. Heim, Irene. 1991. Artikel und Definitheit [Articles and definiteness]. In Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenossischen Forschung, eds. Arnim von Stechow and Dieter Wunderlich, 487–535. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  17. Hiramatsu, Kazuko. 1998. Natural classes of subjacency violations: Evidence from syntactic satiation. General examination paper, Department of Linguistics, University of Connecticut, Storrs. Google Scholar
  18. IBM. 2011. IBM SPSS statistics for Windows, version 20.0. Armonk: IBM Corp. Google Scholar
  19. Isaacs, James, and Kyle Rawlins. 2008. Conditional questions. Journal of Semantics 25: 269–319. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Karagjosova, Elena. 2004. The meaning and force of German modal particles. Saarbrücken dissertations in computational linguistics and language technology. Google Scholar
  21. Karagjosova, Elena. 2006. Correction and acceptance by contrastive focus. In Brandial 2006, the 10th workshop on the semantics and pragmatics of dialogue, 26–33. Potsdam: University of Potsdam. Google Scholar
  22. Karttunen, Lauri. 1974. Presuppositions and linguistic context. Theoretical Linguistics 1: 181–194. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kaufmann, Magdalena, and Stefan Kaufmann. 2012. Epistemic particles and performativity. In Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference (SALT) 22, ed. Anca Chereches, 208–225. Google Scholar
  24. Krifka, Manfred. 2015. Bias in commitment space semantics: Declarative questions, negated questions, and question tags. In Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference (SALT) 25, eds. Sarah D’Antonio, Mary Moroney, and Carol Rose Little, 328–345. New York: Linguistic Society of America and Cornell Linguistics Circle. Google Scholar
  25. Krifka, Manfred. 2017. Negated polarity questions as denegations of assertions. In Contrastiveness in information structure, alternatives and scalar implicatures: Studies in natural language and linguistic theory, vol. 91, eds. Chungmin Lee, Ferenc Kiefer, and Manfred Krifka. Cham: Springer. Google Scholar
  26. Li, Charles N., and Sandra A. Thompson. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press. Google Scholar
  27. Liu, Yuehua, Wenyu Pan, and Wei Gu. 2004. Shiyong xiandai hanyu yufa [Practical modern Chinese grammar], 2nd edn. Beijing: Commercial Press. Google Scholar
  28. Malamud, Sophia A, and Tamina C. Stephenson. 2015. Three ways to avoid commitments: Declarative force modifiers in the conversational scoreboard. Journal of Semantics 32 (2): 275–311. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McCready, E. 2008. What man does. Linguistics and Philosophy 31 (6): 671–724. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McCready, E., and Malte Zimmermann. 2011. Particles (Lecture notes). In ESSLLI 2011. Google Scholar
  31. Müller, Sonja. 2014. Zur Anordnung der Modalpartikeln “ja” und “doch”: (In)stabile Kontexte und (non)kanonische Assertionen. Linguistische Berichte 238: 165–208. Google Scholar
  32. Potts, Christopher. 2007. Logic for linguists. Course for LSA institute. Available at http://www.christopherpotts.net/ling/teaching/lsa108P/. Accessed 30 October 2018.
  33. Qi, Huyang. 2002. Yuqici he yuqi xitong [Mood particles and mood system]. Hefei: Anhui Education Press. Google Scholar
  34. Roberts, Craige. 1996. Information structure: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. In OSU working papers in linguistics, vol. 49, eds. Jae Hak Yoon and Andreas Kathol, 91–136. Columbus: OSU Department of Linguistics. Google Scholar
  35. Romero, Maribel, and Chung-hye Han. 2004. On negative yes/no questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 27 (5): 609–658. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schourup, Lawrence C. 1985. Common discourse particles in English conversation. New York: Garland. Google Scholar
  38. Schütze, Carson T. 1996. The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  39. Snyder, William. 2000. An experimental investigation of syntactic satiation effects. Linguistic Inquiry 31 (3): 575–582. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stalnaker, Robert. 1978. Assertion. Syntax and Semantics 9: 315–332. Google Scholar
  41. Yuan, Mengxi. 2015. Mandarin discourse adverbs as presupposition triggers. PhD diss., City University of Hong Kong. Google Scholar
  42. Yuan, Mengxi, and Yurie Hara. 2012. The semantics of Mandarin assertion modifier dique and zhende. In Sinn und Bedeutung 17, eds. Vincent Homer, Emmanuel Chemla and Grégoire Winterstein, 617–634. Google Scholar
  43. Zeevat, Henk. 2004. Particles: Presupposition triggers, context markers or speech act markers. In Optimality theory and pragmatics, eds. Reinhard Blutner and Henk Zeevat, 91–111. London: Palgrave McMillan. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zhang, Yisheng. 2000. Xiandai hanyu xuci [Function words in Modern Chinese]. Shanghai: East China Normal University Press. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Jinan UniversitySchool of HumanitiesZhuhai CityChina
  2. 2.Waseda UniversityFaculty of Science and EngineeringTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations