This MA thesis deals with the Hebrew hedging expression be-gadol, which can be roughly translated... more This MA thesis deals with the Hebrew hedging expression be-gadol, which can be roughly translated as basically. be-gadol has a variety of uses, it is very flexible and it is rarely infelicitous. be-gadol is semilar in some ways to for the most part, and more or less, but its semantics cannot be reduced to the semantics of one of them. In addition, the felicity and interpretation of be-gadol depends on the context, for example on the roles and goals of the participants in the discourse. Finally, it seems that be-gadol is focus sensitive. The intuitive direction we offer to account for these observations is that be-gadol is a hedger over an answerhood scale: it seems to combine with an answer to a question, that is to the “Question Under Discussion” (QUD) using Roberts’ (1996) terminology, and indicates that this answer is not the best answer to this question, along an answerhood scale, but it is not too far from this “best answer” either. This intuition raises several more challenges - how does one measure the “goodness” of an answer and how to best define an “answerhood scale”? Which terms do we need to capture the “closeness” relation between the answer be-gadol combines with and the “best” answer? How can we use this intuition to account for the different uses of be-gadol? How can the concepts of “goodness” of answer and “closeness” relation between answers help us account for the few cases in which be-gadol is not good? And last but not least - what explains what seems to be the focus sensitivity of be-gadol? To capture the above intuition and answer these questions we develop a lexical entry for be-gadol in two stages. First, we take be-gadol to be a scalar operator along an informativity-based scale of answers to question, based on Roberts’ (1996) approach. This intuitively means that p is not the best answer in terms of informativity (i.e. not the most informative answer), but it is not far from being the most informative answer. We note, though, that although an informativity-based scale is important to the definition of be-gadol it could only capture some of the uses, but it wasn’t enough for others. In particular, we show that to account for the hedging effects of be-gadol we must find a relative concept (different from the absolute concept of informativity), which will also allow us to capture the “closeness” relation between p and the best answer. We thus add another scale to the lexical entry of be-gadol, based on the notion of resolution, as introduced in Ginzburg (1995) and formulized in van Rooy (2003), and manage to capture the rest of the uses we specified. Using the two scales we take be-gadol to indicate that there are two answers to the QUD, p and pbest, and that pbest is better than p along both scales- that of informativity and that of resolution. However, p is still close to pbest along the resolution scale. We use van Rooy’s framework to define several strategies in which one proposition can be better than another, and apply these strategies to two ways in which pbest can be better than p, and to two constraints on pbest. We end by showing that the focus sensitivity of be-gadol is caused indirectly by its sensitivity to the QUD, making be-gadol question sensitive rather than focus sensitive. Given our analysis, then, be-gadol is a scalar particle which lexicalizes QUD-sensitivity and sensitivity to question-resolution and informativity. These notions have been dealt with more theoretically so far, and as far as we know this is the first time a particle is analyzed in this way.
In this paper we look at three approximators: Almost (and the Hebrew kim'at), more or less
(and ... more In this paper we look at three approximators: Almost (and the Hebrew kim'at), more or less (and the Hebrew paxot o yoter) and be-gadol (literally in-big, which can be translated as "byand-large" / "loosely speaking" / “basically”). We examine a range of similarities and differences between the three approximators and propose to account for them by assuming that all of them are scalar operators, whose semantics combines a polar (negative) component, rejecting the prejacent under an actual value to a relevant parameter, is false, and a proximity (positive) component, accepting an alternative which is lower and close to the prejacent, but that the three particles differ in the choice of the 'relevant parameter' in the negative component (a world, a precision standard, a standard of answerhood to the Question Under Discussion, etc.), and hence also in the alternatives to the prejacent in the positive component.
This MA thesis deals with the Hebrew hedging expression be-gadol, which can be roughly translated... more This MA thesis deals with the Hebrew hedging expression be-gadol, which can be roughly translated as basically. be-gadol has a variety of uses, it is very flexible and it is rarely infelicitous. be-gadol is semilar in some ways to for the most part, and more or less, but its semantics cannot be reduced to the semantics of one of them. In addition, the felicity and interpretation of be-gadol depends on the context, for example on the roles and goals of the participants in the discourse. Finally, it seems that be-gadol is focus sensitive. The intuitive direction we offer to account for these observations is that be-gadol is a hedger over an answerhood scale: it seems to combine with an answer to a question, that is to the “Question Under Discussion” (QUD) using Roberts’ (1996) terminology, and indicates that this answer is not the best answer to this question, along an answerhood scale, but it is not too far from this “best answer” either. This intuition raises several more challenges - how does one measure the “goodness” of an answer and how to best define an “answerhood scale”? Which terms do we need to capture the “closeness” relation between the answer be-gadol combines with and the “best” answer? How can we use this intuition to account for the different uses of be-gadol? How can the concepts of “goodness” of answer and “closeness” relation between answers help us account for the few cases in which be-gadol is not good? And last but not least - what explains what seems to be the focus sensitivity of be-gadol? To capture the above intuition and answer these questions we develop a lexical entry for be-gadol in two stages. First, we take be-gadol to be a scalar operator along an informativity-based scale of answers to question, based on Roberts’ (1996) approach. This intuitively means that p is not the best answer in terms of informativity (i.e. not the most informative answer), but it is not far from being the most informative answer. We note, though, that although an informativity-based scale is important to the definition of be-gadol it could only capture some of the uses, but it wasn’t enough for others. In particular, we show that to account for the hedging effects of be-gadol we must find a relative concept (different from the absolute concept of informativity), which will also allow us to capture the “closeness” relation between p and the best answer. We thus add another scale to the lexical entry of be-gadol, based on the notion of resolution, as introduced in Ginzburg (1995) and formulized in van Rooy (2003), and manage to capture the rest of the uses we specified. Using the two scales we take be-gadol to indicate that there are two answers to the QUD, p and pbest, and that pbest is better than p along both scales- that of informativity and that of resolution. However, p is still close to pbest along the resolution scale. We use van Rooy’s framework to define several strategies in which one proposition can be better than another, and apply these strategies to two ways in which pbest can be better than p, and to two constraints on pbest. We end by showing that the focus sensitivity of be-gadol is caused indirectly by its sensitivity to the QUD, making be-gadol question sensitive rather than focus sensitive. Given our analysis, then, be-gadol is a scalar particle which lexicalizes QUD-sensitivity and sensitivity to question-resolution and informativity. These notions have been dealt with more theoretically so far, and as far as we know this is the first time a particle is analyzed in this way.
In this paper we look at three approximators: Almost (and the Hebrew kim'at), more or less
(and ... more In this paper we look at three approximators: Almost (and the Hebrew kim'at), more or less (and the Hebrew paxot o yoter) and be-gadol (literally in-big, which can be translated as "byand-large" / "loosely speaking" / “basically”). We examine a range of similarities and differences between the three approximators and propose to account for them by assuming that all of them are scalar operators, whose semantics combines a polar (negative) component, rejecting the prejacent under an actual value to a relevant parameter, is false, and a proximity (positive) component, accepting an alternative which is lower and close to the prejacent, but that the three particles differ in the choice of the 'relevant parameter' in the negative component (a world, a precision standard, a standard of answerhood to the Question Under Discussion, etc.), and hence also in the alternatives to the prejacent in the positive component.
Uploads
Papers by moria ronen
be-gadol has a variety of uses, it is very flexible and it is rarely infelicitous. be-gadol is semilar in some ways to for the most part, and more or less, but its semantics cannot be reduced to the semantics of one of them. In addition, the felicity and interpretation of be-gadol depends on the context, for example on the roles and goals of the participants in the discourse. Finally, it seems that be-gadol is focus sensitive.
The intuitive direction we offer to account for these observations is that be-gadol is a hedger over an answerhood scale: it seems to combine with an answer to a question, that is to the “Question Under Discussion” (QUD) using Roberts’ (1996) terminology, and indicates that this answer is not the best answer to this question, along an answerhood scale, but it is not too far from this “best answer” either.
This intuition raises several more challenges - how does one measure the “goodness” of an answer and how to best define an “answerhood scale”? Which terms do we need to capture the “closeness” relation between the answer be-gadol combines with and the “best” answer? How can we use this intuition to account for the different uses of be-gadol? How can the concepts of “goodness” of answer and “closeness” relation between answers help us account for the few cases in which be-gadol is not good? And last but not least - what explains what seems to be the focus sensitivity of be-gadol?
To capture the above intuition and answer these questions we develop a lexical entry for be-gadol in two stages. First, we take be-gadol to be a scalar operator along an informativity-based scale of answers to question, based on Roberts’ (1996) approach. This intuitively means that p is not the best answer in terms of informativity (i.e. not the most informative answer), but it is not far from being the most informative answer. We note, though, that although an informativity-based scale is important to the definition of be-gadol it could only capture some of the uses, but it wasn’t enough for others. In particular, we show that to account for the hedging effects of be-gadol we must find a relative concept (different from the absolute concept of informativity), which will also allow us to capture the “closeness” relation between p and the best answer. We thus add another scale to the lexical entry of be-gadol, based on the notion of resolution, as introduced in Ginzburg (1995) and formulized in van Rooy (2003), and manage to capture the rest of the uses we specified. Using the two scales we take be-gadol to indicate that there are two answers to the QUD, p and pbest, and that pbest is better than p along both scales- that of informativity and that of resolution. However, p is still close to pbest along the resolution scale.
We use van Rooy’s framework to define several strategies in which one proposition can be better than another, and apply these strategies to two ways in which pbest can be better than p, and to two constraints on pbest.
We end by showing that the focus sensitivity of be-gadol is caused indirectly by its sensitivity to the QUD, making be-gadol question sensitive rather than focus sensitive.
Given our analysis, then, be-gadol is a scalar particle which lexicalizes QUD-sensitivity and sensitivity to question-resolution and informativity. These notions have been dealt with more theoretically so far, and as far as we know this is the first time a particle is analyzed in this way.
(and the Hebrew paxot o yoter) and be-gadol (literally in-big, which can be translated as "byand-large" / "loosely speaking" / “basically”). We examine a range of similarities and
differences between the three approximators and propose to account for them by assuming
that all of them are scalar operators, whose semantics combines a polar (negative)
component, rejecting the prejacent under an actual value to a relevant parameter, is false, and
a proximity (positive) component, accepting an alternative which is lower and close to the
prejacent, but that the three particles differ in the choice of the 'relevant parameter' in the
negative component (a world, a precision standard, a standard of answerhood to the Question
Under Discussion, etc.), and hence also in the alternatives to the prejacent in the positive
component.
be-gadol has a variety of uses, it is very flexible and it is rarely infelicitous. be-gadol is semilar in some ways to for the most part, and more or less, but its semantics cannot be reduced to the semantics of one of them. In addition, the felicity and interpretation of be-gadol depends on the context, for example on the roles and goals of the participants in the discourse. Finally, it seems that be-gadol is focus sensitive.
The intuitive direction we offer to account for these observations is that be-gadol is a hedger over an answerhood scale: it seems to combine with an answer to a question, that is to the “Question Under Discussion” (QUD) using Roberts’ (1996) terminology, and indicates that this answer is not the best answer to this question, along an answerhood scale, but it is not too far from this “best answer” either.
This intuition raises several more challenges - how does one measure the “goodness” of an answer and how to best define an “answerhood scale”? Which terms do we need to capture the “closeness” relation between the answer be-gadol combines with and the “best” answer? How can we use this intuition to account for the different uses of be-gadol? How can the concepts of “goodness” of answer and “closeness” relation between answers help us account for the few cases in which be-gadol is not good? And last but not least - what explains what seems to be the focus sensitivity of be-gadol?
To capture the above intuition and answer these questions we develop a lexical entry for be-gadol in two stages. First, we take be-gadol to be a scalar operator along an informativity-based scale of answers to question, based on Roberts’ (1996) approach. This intuitively means that p is not the best answer in terms of informativity (i.e. not the most informative answer), but it is not far from being the most informative answer. We note, though, that although an informativity-based scale is important to the definition of be-gadol it could only capture some of the uses, but it wasn’t enough for others. In particular, we show that to account for the hedging effects of be-gadol we must find a relative concept (different from the absolute concept of informativity), which will also allow us to capture the “closeness” relation between p and the best answer. We thus add another scale to the lexical entry of be-gadol, based on the notion of resolution, as introduced in Ginzburg (1995) and formulized in van Rooy (2003), and manage to capture the rest of the uses we specified. Using the two scales we take be-gadol to indicate that there are two answers to the QUD, p and pbest, and that pbest is better than p along both scales- that of informativity and that of resolution. However, p is still close to pbest along the resolution scale.
We use van Rooy’s framework to define several strategies in which one proposition can be better than another, and apply these strategies to two ways in which pbest can be better than p, and to two constraints on pbest.
We end by showing that the focus sensitivity of be-gadol is caused indirectly by its sensitivity to the QUD, making be-gadol question sensitive rather than focus sensitive.
Given our analysis, then, be-gadol is a scalar particle which lexicalizes QUD-sensitivity and sensitivity to question-resolution and informativity. These notions have been dealt with more theoretically so far, and as far as we know this is the first time a particle is analyzed in this way.
(and the Hebrew paxot o yoter) and be-gadol (literally in-big, which can be translated as "byand-large" / "loosely speaking" / “basically”). We examine a range of similarities and
differences between the three approximators and propose to account for them by assuming
that all of them are scalar operators, whose semantics combines a polar (negative)
component, rejecting the prejacent under an actual value to a relevant parameter, is false, and
a proximity (positive) component, accepting an alternative which is lower and close to the
prejacent, but that the three particles differ in the choice of the 'relevant parameter' in the
negative component (a world, a precision standard, a standard of answerhood to the Question
Under Discussion, etc.), and hence also in the alternatives to the prejacent in the positive
component.