1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Linguistics
  4. Volume 5, 2019
  5. Article

Annual Review of Linguistics

Volume 5, 2019

Response Systems: The Syntax and Semantics of Fragment Answers and Response Particles

Abstract

This article critically reviews the main research issues raised in the study of response systems in natural languages by addressing the syntax and semantics of fragment answers and response particles. Fragment answers include replies that do not have a sentential form, whereas response particles consist solely of an affirmative or a negative adverb. While the main research question in the syntax of fragments and response particles has been whether these contain more syntactic structure than what is actually pronounced, the key issues in the study of their semantics are question–answer congruence, the anaphoric potential of response particles, and the meaning of fragments in relation to positive and negative questions. In connection to these issues, this review suggests some interesting avenues for further research: () providing an analysis of particles other than , () choosing between echoic versus nonechoic forms as answers to polar questions, and () deciding whether some non-lexically-based or nonverbal responses are systematically used in combination with polar particles to express (dis)agreement.

Keyword(s): answers, fragments, response particles, semantics, syntax
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011718-012613
2019-01-14
2024-04-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/5/1/annurev-linguistics-011718-012613.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011718-012613&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Asher N 1986. Belief in discourse representation theory. J. Philos. Log. 15:127–89
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Asher N, Lascarides A 2003. Logics of Conversation Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  3. Barton E 1990. Non-Sentential Constituents. A Theory of Grammatical Structure and Pragmatic Interpretation. Amsterdam: Benjamins
  4. Batllori M, Hernanz ML 2013. Emphatic polarity particles in Spanish and Catalan. Lingua 128:9–30
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Brame MK 1979. Essays Toward Realistic Syntax Seattle, WA: Noit Amrofer
  6. Brasoveanu A, Farkas DF, Roelofsen F 2013. N-words and sentential negation: evidence from polarity particles and VP ellipsis. Semant. Pragmat. 6:1–33
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Büring D, Gunlogson C 2000. Aren't positive and negative polarity questions the same? Unpubl. ms., Univ. Calif. Santa Cruz: https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/mYwOGNhO/polar_questions.pdf
  8. Claus B, Meijer M, Repp S, Krifka M 2017. Puzzling response particles: an experimental study on the German answering system. Semant. Pragmat. 10:19
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Cornish F 1992. So be it: the discourse-semantics of so and it. J. Semant 9:163–78
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Culicover P, Jackendoff R 2005. Simpler Syntax Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  11. Culicover P, Jackendoff R 2006. The simpler syntax hypothesis. Trends Cogn. Sci. 10:413–18
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Curme GO 1931. A Grammar of the English Language 3 Syntax Boston: Heath
  13. Cyrino S, Kato M 2012. Minimal answers, semi-clefts and IP-ellipsis Paper presented at the Workshop on Answers to Polar Questions, Newcastle Univ. Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK: June 8–9
     [Google Scholar]
  14. de Oliveira M 1996. Respostas assertivas e sua variação nas línguas românicas: o seu papel na aquisição PhD thesis, Univ. Campinas Braz.:
  15. Dvořák B 2007. Slovenian clitic pronouns and what is so special about them. Slov. Linguist. Stud. 6:209–33
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Egg M, Zimmermann M 2012. Stressed out! Accented discourse particles—the case of DOCH. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 16 A Aguilar Guevara, A Chernilovskaya, R Nouwen 225–38 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Espinal MT, Prieto P 2011. Intonational encoding of double negation in Catalan. J. Pragmat. 43:2392–410
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Espinal MT, Tubau S 2016. Interpreting argumental n-words as answers to negative wh-questions. Lingua 177:41–59
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Espinal MT, Tubau S, Borràs-Comes J, Prieto P 2016. Double negation in Catalan and Spanish. Interaction between syntax and prosody. Negation and Polarity: Experimental Perspectives P Larrivée, C Lee 143–74 Berlin: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Etxeberria U 2012. Quantification in Basque. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 90 Handbook of Quantifiers in Natural Languages E Keenan, D Paperno 83–164 Berlin: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Farkas DF 2010. Polarity particles in English and Romanian. Proceedings of the 40th Linguistics Symposium on Romance Languages J Herschensohn 303–28 Amsterdam: Benjamins
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Farkas DF, Bruce KB 2010. On reacting to assertions and polar questions. J. Semant. 27:81–118
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Filppula M 1999. The Grammar of Irish English: Language in Hibernian Style. London/New York: Routledge
  24. Follett W 1966. Modern American Usage New York: Hill & Wang
  25. Fowler HW 1926. A Dictionary of Modern English Usage Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  26. Frank A 1996. Context dependence in modal constructions PhD thesis Univ. Stuttgart Ger.:
  27. Geurts B 1998. Presuppositions and anaphors in attitude contexts. Linguist. Philos. 21:545–601
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Giannakidou A 1998. Polarity Sensitivity as (Non)Veridical Dependency Amsterdam: Benjamins
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Giannakidou A 2000. Negative…concord. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 18:457–523
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Ginzburg J, Sag I 2000. Interrogative Investigations Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf.
  31. González-Fuente S, Tubau S, Espinal MT, Prieto P 2015. How do languages reject negative propositions? Typological evidence on the use of prosody and gesture. Front. Psychol. Lang. Sci. 6:899
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Goodhue D, Wagner M 2018. Intonation, yes and no. Glossa 3:5
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Groenendijk J, Stokhof M 1984. Studies in the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers PhD thesis, Univ. Amsterdam, Neth.
  34. Gutzmann D, Castroviejo E 2011. The dimensions of verum. Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 8 O Bonami, P Cabredo-Hofherr 143–65 Paris: Colloq. Syntaxe Sémant. Paris
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Gutzmann D, Hartmann K, Matthewson L 2017. Verum focus is verum, not focus: cross-linguistic evidence Unpubl. ms., Univ. Cologne Ger: https://www.danielgutzmann.com/work/verum-focus-is-verum-not-focus
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Halliday MAK, Hasan R 1976. Cohesion in English London: Longman
  37. Hamblin CL 1958. Questions. Australas. J. Philos. 36:159–68
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Hamblin CL 1973. Questions in Montague English. Found. Lang. 10:41–53
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Hankamer J 1979. Deletion in Coordination Structures New York: Garland
  40. Hirschberg J, Ward G 1984. A semantico-pragmatic analysis of fall–rise intonation. Papers from the 20th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society J Drogo, V Mishra, D Testen 173–80 Chicago: Chicago Linguist. Soc.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Höhle TN 1992. Über Verum-Fokus im Deutschen. Informationsstruktur und Grammatik J Jacobs 112–41 Opladen, Ger.: Westdeutscher
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Holmberg A 2001. The syntax of ‘yes’ and ‘no’ in Finnish. Stud. Linguist. 55:140–74
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Holmberg A 2013. The syntax of answers to polar questions in English and Swedish. Lingua 128:31–50
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Holmberg A 2016. The Syntax of Yes and No Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  45. Jackendoff R 1997. The Architecture of the Language Faculty Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  46. Jacobson P 2016. The short answer: implications for direct compositionality (and vice versa). Language 92:331–75
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Jespersen O 1924. The Philosophy of Grammar London: Allen & Unwin
  48. Jespersen O 1933. Essentials of English Grammar London: Allen & Unwin
  49. Jespersen O 1949. Language: Its Nature, Development and Origin New York: Macmillan
  50. Jones BM 1999. The Welsh Answering System Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
  51. Karttunen L 1977. Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguist. Philos. 1:3–44
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Kramer R, Rawlins K 2011. Polarity particles: an ellipsis account. Proceedings of the 39th Meeting of the North East Linguistics Society (NELS39) S Lima, K Mullin, B Smith 479–91 Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Krifka M 2001. For a structured meaning account of questions and answers. Audiatur Vox Sapientiae: A Festschrift for Arnim von Stechow C Fery, W Sternefeld 287–319 Berlin: Akademie
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Krifka M 2004. The semantics of questions and the focusation of answers. Topic and Focus: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective C Lee, M Gordon, D Büring 139–51 Dordrecht, Neth.: Kluwer
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Krifka M 2006.a Association with focus phrases. The Architecture of Focus V Molnár, S Winkler 105–36 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Krifka M 2006.b Question–Answer congruence and the proper representation of focus. Proceedings of the 10th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue55 Potsdam, Ger.: Univ. Postdam
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Krifka M 2007. Basic notions of information structure. The Notions of Information Structure C Féry, G Fanselow, M Krifka 13–55 Potsdam, Ger.: Univ. Potsdam
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Krifka M 2013. Response particles as propositional anaphors. Proceedings of the 23rd Semantic and Linguistic Theory Conference (SALT 23) T Snider 1–18 Washington, DC: Linguist. Soc. Am.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Krifka M 2017. Negative polarity questions as denegations of assertions. Contrastiveness in Information Structure, Alternatives and Scalar Implicatures C Lee, F Kiefer, M Krifka 359–98 Berlin: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Laakso M, Sorjonen ML 2010. Cut-off or particle—devices for initiating self-repair in conversation. J. Pragmat. 42:1151–72
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Ladd RD 1981. A first look at the semantics and pragmatics of negative questions and tag questions. Papers from the 17th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society RA Hendrick, CS Masek, MF Miller 164–71 Chicago: Chicago Linguist. Soc.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Laka I 1990. Negation in syntax: on the nature of functional categories and projections PhD thesis MIT Cambridge, MA:
  63. Lasnik H 2001.a Derivation and representation in modern transformational syntax. The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory M Baltin, C Collins 62–88 Oxford, UK: Blackwell
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Lasnik H 2001.b When can you save a structure by destroying it. Proceedings of the 31st Meeting of the North East Linguistics Society (NELS31) K Minjoo, U Strauss 301–20 Amherst, MA: Grad. Linguist. Stud. Assoc.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Leonetti M, Escandell-Vidal MV 2009. Fronting and verum focus in Spanish. Focus and Background in Romance Languages A Dufter, D Jacob 155–204 Amsterdam: Benjamins
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Li F, González-Fuente S, Prieto P, Espinal MT 2016. Is Mandarin Chinese a truth-based language? Rejecting responses to negative assertions and questions. Front. Psychol. Lang. Sci. 7:1967
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Liberman M, Sag I 1974. Prosodic form and discourse function. Papers from the 10th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society MW La Galy, RA Fox, A Bruck 402–15 Chicago: Chicago Linguist. Soc.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Mac Eoin G 1993. Irish. The Celtic Languages MJ Ball 101–44 London/New York: Routledge
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Martins AM 2007. Double realization of verbal copies in European Portuguese emphatic affirmation. The Copy Theory of Movement N Corver, J Nunes 77–118 Amsterdam: Benjamins
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Matthews PH 1981. Syntax Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  71. McCloskey J 1991. Clause structure, ellipsis and proper government in Irish. Lingua 85:259–302
     [Google Scholar]
  72. McCloskey J 1996. Subjects and subject positions in Irish. The Syntax of the Celtic Languages R Borsley, I Roberts 241–83 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Meijer AM, Claus C, Repp S, Krifka M 2015. Particle responses to negated assertions: preference patterns for German ja and nein. Proceedings of the 20th Amsterdam Colloquium T Brochhagen, F Roelofsen, N Theiler 286–95 Amsterdam: Univ. Amsterdam
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Merchant J 2001. The Syntax of Silence Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  75. Merchant J 2004. Fragment and ellipsis. Linguist. Philos. 27:661–738
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Merchant J 2006. Sluicing. The Blackwell Companion to Syntax M Everaert, H van Riemsdijk, R Goedemans, B Hollebrandse pp. 269–89 Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Merchant J 2008. Variable island repair under ellipsis. Topics in Ellipsis K Johnson 132–53 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Merchant J, Frazier L, Clifton C Jr., Weskott T 2013. Fragment answers to questions: a case of inaudible syntax. Brevity L Goldstein 21–35 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Montague R 1970. Universal grammar. Theoria 36:373–98
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Morgan J 1973. Sentence fragments and the notion “sentence. Issues in Linguistics B Kachru, R Lees, Y Malkiel, A Pietrangeli, S Saporta 719–51 Urbana: Univ. Ill. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Morgan J 1989. Sentence fragments revisited. Papers from the 25th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society: Parasession on Language in Context B Music, R Graczyk, C Wiltshire 228–41 Chicago: Chicago Linguist. Soc.
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Napoli D 1982. Initial material deletion in English. Glossa 16:85–111
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Ó Siadhail M 1989. Modern Irish: Grammatical Structure and Dialectal Variation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  84. Paul H 1891. Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte [Principles of the History of Language] London: Longman (In German)
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Pope EN 1975. Questions and Answers in English Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Linguist. Club
  86. Prieto P, Borràs-Comes J, Tubau S, Espinal MT 2013. Prosody and gesture constrain the interpretation of double negation. Lingua 131:136–50
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Reese BJ 2006. The meaning and use of negative polar interrogatives. Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 6 O Bonami, P Cabredo-Hofherr 331–54 Paris: Colloq. Syntaxe Sémant. Paris
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Reese BJ, Asher N 2010. Biased questions, intonation, and discourse. Information Structure: Theoretical, Typological, and Experimental Perspectives M Zimmermann, C Féry 139–73 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Reich I 2002. Question/answer congruence and the semantics of wh-phrases. Theor. Linguist. 28:73–94
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Reich I 2003. Frage, Antwort und Fokus Berlin: Akademie
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Reich I 2007. Toward a uniform analysis of short answers and gapping. On Information Structure, Meaning and Form K Schwabe, S Winkler 467–84 Amsterdam: Benjamins
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Roberts C 2012. Information structure in discourse: towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semant. Pragmat. 5:1–69
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Roelofsen F, Farkas DF 2015. Polarity particle responses as a window onto the interpretation of questions and assertions. Language 91:359–414
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Romero M, Han C 2004. On negative yes/no questions. Linguist. Philos. 27:609–58
     [Google Scholar]
  95. Rooth M 1985. Association with focus PhD thesis Univ. Mass. Amherst:
  96. Rooth M 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Nat. Lang. Semant. 1:75–116
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Ross JR 1969. Guess who. Papers from the 5th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society R Binnick, A Davison, G Green, J Morgan 252–86 Chicago: Chicago Linguist. Soc.
     [Google Scholar]
  98. Servidio E, Bocci G, Bianchi V 2018. (Dis)agreement, polarity, and focus: answering negative polar questions in Italian. Glossa 3:3
     [Google Scholar]
  99. Sorjonen ML 2001. Responding in Conversation: A Study of Response Particles in Finnish Amsterdam: Benjamins
  100. Stainton RJ 1998. Quantifier phrases, meaningfulness “in isolation”, and ellipsis. Linguist. Philos. 21:311–40
     [Google Scholar]
  101. Stainton RJ 2005. In defense of non-sentential assertion. Semantics Versus Pragmatics Z Szabo 383–457 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Stainton RJ 2006.a Neither fragments nor ellipsis. The Syntax of Nonsententials: Multidisciplinary Perspectives L Progovac, K Paesania, E Casielles, E Barton 93–116 Philadelphia: Benjamins
     [Google Scholar]
  103. Stainton RJ 2006.b Words and Thoughts: Subsentences, Ellipsis, and the Philosophy of Language Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  104. Stanley J 2000. Context and logical form. Linguist. Philos. 23:391–434
     [Google Scholar]
  105. Sudhoff S 2012. Negation der Negation—Verumfokus und die niederländische Polaritätspartikel wel. Wahrheit–Fokus–Negation H Blühdorn, H Lohnstein 105–36 Hamburg, Ger.: Buske
     [Google Scholar]
  106. Sweet H 1900. New English Grammar Oxford, UK: Clarendon
  107. Temmerman T 2013. The syntax of Dutch embedded fragment answers: on the PF-theory of islands and the wh/sluicing correlation. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 31:235–85
     [Google Scholar]
  108. Thoma SC 2016. Discourse particles and the syntax of discourse: evidence from Miesbach Bavarian PhD thesis Univ. B. C. Vancouver:
  109. Tubau S, González-Fuente S, Prieto P, Espinal MT 2015. Prosody and gesture in the interpretation of yes-answers to negative yes–no questions. Linguist. Rev 32:115–42
     [Google Scholar]
  110. van Craenenbroeck J 2010. The Syntax of Ellipsis: Evidence from Dutch Dialects New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  111. von Stechow A 1991. Focusing and background operators. Discourse Particles: Descriptive and Theoretical Investigations on the Logical, Syntactic and Pragmatic Properties of Discourse Particles in German A Werner 37–84 Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins
     [Google Scholar]
  112. Weir A 2014. Fragment answers and the Question under Discussion. Proceedings of the 44th Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS44) J Iyer, L Kusmer pp. 255–66 Amherst, MA: Grad. Linguist. Stud. Assoc.
     [Google Scholar]
  113. Wiltschko M 2017. Response particles beyond answering. Order and Structure in Syntax, vol. 1: Word Order and Syntactic Structure LR Bailey, M Sheehan 241–79 Berlin: Lang. Sci.
     [Google Scholar]
  114. Wiltschko M, Heim J 2016. The syntax of sentence peripheral discourse markers: a neo-performative analysis. Outside the Clause: Form and Function of Extra-Clausal Constituents G Kaltenböck, E Keizer, A Lohmann 305–40 Amsterdam: Benjamins
     [Google Scholar]
  115. Yanofsky N 1978. NP utterances. Papers from the 14th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society DF Farkas, W Jacobsen, K Todrys 491–502 Chicago: Chicago Linguist. Soc.
     [Google Scholar]
  116. Zeijlstra H 2004. Sentential negation and negative concord PhD thesis, Univ. Amsterdam, Neth.
  117. Zeijlstra H 2012. There is only one way to agree. Linguist. Rev. 29:491–539
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011718-012613
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error