Reverse sobel sequences and the dissimilarity of antecedent worlds

Cite This

Files in this item

Checksum: MD5:8cb6af52ccf1d65e858e5d0efccd379c

KRASSNIG, David, 2020. Reverse sobel sequences and the dissimilarity of antecedent worlds. Sinn und Bedeutung 24. Osnabrück, Sep 4, 2019 - Sep 7, 2019. In: FRANKE, Michael, ed., Nikola KOMPA, ed., Mingya LIU, ed. and others. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 24. Konstanz:University of Konstanz, pp. 447-463. eISSN 2629-6055. Available under: doi: 10.18148/sub/2020.v24i1.877

@inproceedings{Krassnig2020Rever-59087, title={Reverse sobel sequences and the dissimilarity of antecedent worlds}, year={2020}, doi={10.18148/sub/2020.v24i1.877}, address={Konstanz}, publisher={University of Konstanz}, booktitle={Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 24}, pages={447--463}, editor={Franke, Michael and Kompa, Nikola and Liu, Mingya}, author={Krassnig, David} }

<rdf:RDF xmlns:dcterms="" xmlns:dc="" xmlns:rdf="" xmlns:bibo="" xmlns:dspace="" xmlns:foaf="" xmlns:void="" xmlns:xsd="" > <rdf:Description rdf:about=""> <dcterms:rights rdf:resource=""/> <dcterms:issued>2020</dcterms:issued> <dspace:hasBitstream rdf:resource=""/> <foaf:homepage rdf:resource="http://localhost:8080/jspui"/> <dc:creator>Krassnig, David</dc:creator> <dcterms:available rdf:datatype="">2022-11-09T15:15:00Z</dcterms:available> <dc:rights>terms-of-use</dc:rights> <dc:date rdf:datatype="">2022-11-09T15:15:00Z</dc:date> <dc:contributor>Krassnig, David</dc:contributor> <dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource=""/> <dcterms:title>Reverse sobel sequences and the dissimilarity of antecedent worlds</dcterms:title> <dcterms:hasPart rdf:resource=""/> <void:sparqlEndpoint rdf:resource="http://localhost/fuseki/dspace/sparql"/> <dc:language>eng</dc:language> <dcterms:abstract xml:lang="eng">We have conducted an acceptability judgement experiment to examine two hypotheses related to the felicity of reverse Sobel sequences (rSS). The first hypothesis was based upon Lewis’ (2018) relevance-based variably-strict semantics: If two rSS are identical except for their respective difference in dissimilarity between their antecedent worlds, then the rSS with a higher degree of dissimilarity should be, on average, more acceptable. Our results, however, seem to support this hypothesis only weakly and appear more contradictory than supportive to the model behind it: Any kind of clear-cut dissimilarity will render an rSS felicitous, so long as its conditionals are counterfactual by nature. The second hypothesis, that rSS whose domains of quantification are entirely disjoint should be just as acceptable as regular utterances, was quasi-confirmed. Whilst a significant difference to the control items was found, these rSS differ only minimally in average acceptability and are the highest rated rSS so far. We therefore explain the slight, statistically significant decrease in acceptability as a result of the markedness of rSS structures. Finally, we provide two analyses to account for the data gathered. First, one modification of Lewis’ (2018) account, where we argue that relevance may not increase closeness beyond the levels set forth by worlds similarity. Then, with the second account, we attempt to motivate the need for and the pragmatic contribution of contrastive stress with regards to rSS, using Ebert et al.’s (2008) assumption that antecedents represent their conditional’s aboutness topic – thereby deriving contrastive topic with regard to the two sets of antecedent worlds.</dcterms:abstract> <dspace:isPartOfCollection rdf:resource=""/> <bibo:uri rdf:resource=""/> </rdf:Description> </rdf:RDF>

Downloads since Nov 9, 2022 (Information about access statistics)

Krassnig_2-yh8p3glci7ec4.pdf 8

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Search KOPS


My Account