Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


PhilPapersPhilPeoplePhilArchivePhilEventsPhilJobs
Switch to: References

Add citations

You mustlogin to add citations.
  1. Grounding with particles.Ahmad Jabbar &Veda Kanamarlapudi -forthcoming - In Ahmad Jabbar & Veda Kanamarlapudi,Proceedings of the 27th workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (SemDial 27).
    We focus on a sui generis grounding move in Hindi-Urdu dialogue, namely 'voh hi na'. 'Voh' is third person pronoun and can function as a propositional anaphor in dialogue. 'Hi' and 'na' are two discourse particles in Hindi-Urdu. A dataset consisting of minimal pairs of dialogues is presented to get a better sense of the move. Using dynamic models of discourse structure, we propose a semantics for 'voh hi na' in terms of its update effects.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • The Hindi-UrduNA and reasonable inference.Ahmad Jabbar -forthcoming - In Ahmad Jabbar & Pravaal Yadav,Proceedings of the 59th annual meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS 59).
    This paper presents a study into the Hindi-Urdu 'na' as a sentence-final particle. Although also used as a topic marker and negation, 'na' occurs sentence-finally across clause-types. In light of the data, we think the following hypothesis offers the best fit: 'na' signals the speaker’s belief that the content of na’s containing clause is a reasonable inference, given what’s common ground. Notably, in addition to other clause-types, we explore na's distribution in exclamations and exclamatives. We link our work to recent (...) research on the polar question particle 'kya' in Hindi-Urdu. (shrink)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Accepting and resisting inquiry.Ahmad Jabbar &Pravaal Yadav -forthcoming - In Ahmad Jabbar & Pravaal Yadav,Proceedings of the 59th annual meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS 59).
    Recent scoreboard models of conversation, in addition to modeling update effects of assertions and questions, also make sense of how one may react to such discourse moves. An account of acceptance and rejection is captured by Farkas & Bruce (2010), while Bledin & Rawlins (2020) have recently made sense of how one may resist an assertion too. For rejection and resistance of assertions, truth comes out to be a crucial notion. Between X and Y, if Y doesn't believe p to (...) be true, then Y might resist or reject X's assertion of p. For questions however, truth cannot serve this purpose. A complete model of discourse would seek to offer explanation of resisting questions. Much like Bledin & Rawlins, one can non-exhaustively enumerate a class of resistance moves. In many ways, one can resist a request to make a particular question QUD. In this paper, we raise following question: which notion can serve to explain question uptake in discourse? In our paper, we show how the expected utility value (EUV) of questions can serve this role for questions. EUV is used by van Rooij (2003) to give an account of interpretation of questions; we think it can serve our intended purposes too. To demonstrate plausibility, we build a workable formalism. (shrink)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  

  • [8]ページ先頭

    ©2009-2025 Movatter.jp