{"id":1394,"date":"2010-03-29T05:03:47","date_gmt":"2010-03-29T09:03:47","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/whamit.mit.edu\/?p=1394"},"modified":"2010-03-29T08:03:39","modified_gmt":"2010-03-29T12:03:39","slug":"lfrg-331-patrick-grosz","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/2010\/03\/29\/lfrg-331-patrick-grosz\/","title":{"rendered":"LFRG 3\/31 - Patrick Grosz"},"content":{"rendered":"

For the rest of the semester, the LFRG meeting time will alternate between the old slot on Monday, 11:30am, and the _new slot_ on Wednesday at 4pm. So please double-check if a particular meeting you want to attend in on Monday or on Wednesday. The next week the meeting is on WEDNESDAY.<\/P><\/p>\n

WHAT: Talk

\nWHO: Patrick Grosz

\nTITLE: German ‘doch’: An Element that Triggers a Contrast Presupposition

\nWHEN: March 31, Wednesday, 4PM - 5:30PM

\nWHERE: 32-D831<\/P><\/p>\n

WHAT EXACTLY (abstract):<\/P><\/p>\n

This talk investigates the German particle “doch”, contrasting it with
\nthe particle “ja” (Weydt 1969). I propose that in declaratives, “ja” and “doch”
\nare weak and strong counterparts of each other, in the following sense. They
\nshare a core meaning component (uncontroversiality\/familiarity, cf. Kratzer
\n1999), but “doch” has an additional meaning component (contrast\/correction, cf.
\nThurmair 1991). It follows that “ja” and “doch” on their own are in competition.
\nThe particle “ja” is used when the presuppositions for “doch” are not met; in
\ncontrast, “doch” is used when its presuppositions are met, due to Maximize
\nPresupposition (Heim 1991).<\/P>
\n

In my analysis of “doch”, I argue that the correction component operates on
\npropositional alternatives (“doch” reinforces the modified proposition p in
\ncontrast to a contextually salient alternative q that contradicts p) and is
\npresuppositional in nature. I argue that “doch” makes use of an alternative
\nsemantics, associating with focus. This predicts correctly that “doch” triggers
\nintervention effects (Beck 2006): It cannot associate with the same focus as
\nanother focus-sensitive element, such as “nur” (‘only’). My analysis accounts
\nfor ordering restrictions, which permit “ja doch”, but rule out “doch ja”.
\nKratzer (1999) argues that “ja” operates on complete propositions and cannot
\noccur between a quantifier and a variable that it binds. I show that “ja” also
\ncannot intervene between a focus-sensitive particle, like “nur” (‘only’) and
\nthe focus. Given that “doch” is focus-sensitive, we correctly rule out “doch
\nja”, but not “ja doch”.<\/P>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

FUTURE LFRG MEETINGS:<\/P><\/p>\n