13.1138, Qs: Sensation Predicates, Intersentential Anaphora

LINGUIST List linguist at linguistlist.org
Wed Apr 24 14:37:01 UTC 2002


LINGUIST List:  Vol-13-1138. Wed Apr 24 2002. ISSN: 1068-4875.

Subject: 13.1138, Qs: Sensation Predicates, Intersentential Anaphora

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Wayne State U.<aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Dry, Eastern Michigan U. <hdry at linguistlist.org>

Reviews (reviews at linguistlist.org):
	Simin Karimi, U. of Arizona
	Terence Langendoen, U. of Arizona

Consulting Editor:
        Andrew Carnie, U. of Arizona <carnie at linguistlist.org>

Editors (linguist at linguistlist.org):
	Karen Milligan, WSU 		Naomi Ogasawara, EMU
	James Yuells, EMU		Marie Klopfenstein, WSU
	Michael Appleby, EMU		Heather Taylor-Loring, EMU
	Ljuba Veselinova, Stockholm U.	Richard John Harvey, EMU
	Dina Kapetangianni, EMU		Renee Galvis, WSU
	Karolina Owczarzak, EMU

Software: John Remmers, E. Michigan U. <remmers at emunix.emich.edu>
          Gayathri Sriram, E. Michigan U. <gayatri at linguistlist.org>

Home Page:  http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, Wayne
State University, and donations from subscribers and publishers.



Editor for this issue: Karen Milligan <karen at linguistlist.org>
 ==========================================================================

We'd like to remind readers that the responses to queries are usually
best posted to the individual asking the question. That individual is
then strongly encouraged to post a summary to the list. This policy was
instituted to help control the huge volume of mail on LINGUIST; so we
would appreciate your cooperating with it whenever it seems appropriate.

In addition to posting a summary, we'd like to remind people that it
is usually a good idea to personally thank those individuals who have
taken the trouble to respond to the query.


=================================Directory=================================

1)
Date:  Wed, 24 Apr 2002 20:51:06 +0900
From:  Daniela Caluianu <daniela at crest.ocn.ne.jp>
Subject:  sensation and related physical property  predicates

2)
Date:  Wed, 24 Apr 2002 06:01:29 +0000
From:  Daniel Hardt <dh at id.cbs.dk>
Subject:  Semantics and cross sentential binding

-------------------------------- Message 1 -------------------------------

Date:  Wed, 24 Apr 2002 20:51:06 +0900
From:  Daniela Caluianu <daniela at crest.ocn.ne.jp>
Subject:  sensation and related physical property  predicates

Dear collegues,

I would be extremely grateful if you could suggest any
bibliographical material dealing with the semantic
alternation in (1) below.

(1) a. This tea is hot
    b. I am hot

Whereas the predicate in (1a) refers to a physical
property, the one in (1b) refers to a sensation. Sentence
(1b) can be paraphrased as 'I feel hot'.

In some languages, such as my native Romanian, the
semantic distinction is associated with a formal
distinction. The NP in (1a) is nominative whereas the one
in (1b) is dative.

I am particularly interested in:

(a) accounts of this semantic distinction in languages
    where it is not associated with any formal marking.
(b) whether there are any languages that use distinct
    predicates to express (1a) and (1b).

I thank you in advance. I will post a summary.

Daniela Caluianu
daniela at crest.ocn.ne.jp


-------------------------------- Message 2 -------------------------------

Date:  Wed, 24 Apr 2002 06:01:29 +0000
From:  Daniel Hardt <dh at id.cbs.dk>
Subject:  Semantics and cross sentential binding



I am preparing a course comparing Etype and DRT approaches to
intersentential anaphora, and I am looking for literature discussing
the general issue of binding across sentences.  Before DRT, semantics
dealt with sentence meanings individually, and the Etype account makes
it possible to retain that traditional approach.  It is suggested in
Stephen Neale's book (Descriptions, 1990) that this is in fact
preferable on general grounds: he says, about a proposal for
inter-sentential binding (p 170), "This seems to conflict with our
intuitions that each utterance of a complete indicative sentence in a
discourse typically expresses some proposition or other (relative to
the context of utterance) and hence ought to be evaluable for truth or
falsity."  This is a side remark that Neale doesn't pursue.  Are there
other arguments in the literature that semantics ought to treat
sentence meanings individually?  Please respond by email to
dh at id.cbs.dk.

thanks

Dan Hardt

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-13-1138



More information about the Linguist mailing list