Abstract
This paper considers the meaning and use of the English particle man. It is shown that the particle does quite different things when it appears in sentence-initial and sentence-final position; the first use involves expression of an emotional attitude as well as, on a particular intonation, intensification; this use is analyzed using a semantics for degree predicates along with a separate dimension for the expressive aspect. Further restrictions on modification with the sentence-initial particle involving monotonicity and evidence are introduced and analyzed. The sentence-final use can be viewed as strengthening the action performed by the sentence. A formal semantics is given by making use of dynamic techniques and, in a sense, dynamically simulating the modification of certain speech acts. Some empirical and theoretical extensions of the analyses are proposed and some consequences discussed.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Aikhenvald A. (2004) Evidentiality. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Amaral P., Roberts C., Smith E.A. (2007) Review of ‘the Logic of Conventional Implicatures’ by Christopher Potts. Linguistics and Philosophy 30(6): 707–749
Asher N., Lascarides A. (2003) Logics of conversation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
Asher N., McCready E. (2007) Were, would, must and a compositional account of counterfactuals. Journal of Semantics 24(2): 93–129
Barker C. (2002) The dynamics of vagueness. Linguistics and Philosophy 25(1): 1–36
Beaver, D. (2001). Presupposition and assertion in dynamic semantics. No. 16 in Studies in Logic, Language and Information. Stanford, CA: CSLI/FoLLI.
Beaver D., Zeevat H. (2007) Accommodation. In: Ramchand G., Reiss C. (eds) Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Benz, A., Jäger, G., van Rooij, R. (eds) (2006) Game theory and pragmatics. Palgrave, New York
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2008). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (version 5.0.03) [computer program]. Developed at the Institute of Phonetic Sciences, University of Amsterdam.
Castroviejo Miró , E. (2006). Wh-Exclamatives in Catalan. Ph.D. thesis, Universitat de Barcelona.
Dalrymple M., Lamping J., Pereira F., Saraswat V. (1997) Quantifiers, anaphora and intensionality. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 6: 219–273
Davis, C. (2008). Decisions, dynamics and the Japanese particle yo. Manuscript, UMass-Amherst.
Fodor J. (2002) Concepts. Blackwell, Oxford
Frank, A. (1997). Context dependence in modal constructions. Ph.D. thesis, University of Stuttgart.
Gärdenfors P. (1988) Knowledge in flux. MIT Press, Cambridge
Geurts, B. (1995). Presupposing. Ph.D. thesis, University of Stuttgart.
Geurts B. (1999) Presupposition and pronouns. Elsevier, Oxford
Geurts B. (2007) Really fucking brilliant. Theoretical Linguistics 33: 209–214
Groenendijk J., Stokhof M. (1991) Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14: 39–100
Groenendijk J., Stokhof M. (1997) Questions. In Handbook of logic and language. Elsevier, Amsterdam
Harel P., Kozen D., Tiuryn J. (2000) Dynamic logic. MIT Press, Cambridge
Jackson, S. (1948). The lottery. In The New Yorker, issue of June 26.
Kadmon N., Landman F. (1993). Any. Linguistics and Philosophy, 16, 353–422
Kaplan, D. (1989). Demonstratives. In J. Almog, J. Perry, & H. Wettstein (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan. Oxford University Press. Manuscript version from 1977.
Kaplan, D. (1999). The meaning of ouch and oops: Explorations in the theory of meaning as use. Manuscript, UCLA.
Kaufmann, S. (2004). A modal analysis of expressive meaning: German ja under quantifiers. Handout of talk presented at Kobe Shoin.
Kennedy, C. (1999). Projecting the adjective. Garland. 1997 UCSC dissertation.
Kennedy C. (2007) Vagueness and gradability: The semantics of relative and absolute gradable predicates. Linguistics and Philosophy 30(1): 1–45
Kiesling S. (2004) Dude. American Speech 79(3): 281–305
Klein E. (1980) A semantics for positive and comparative adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy 4: 1–45
Kölbel M. (2002) Truth without objectivity. Routledge, London
Koyama, T. (1997). Bunmatusi to bunmatu intoneesyon [sentence-final particles and sentence-final intonation]. In Bunpou to onsei [Grammar and Phonetics]. Kuroshio Press.
Kratzer, A. (1999). Beyond ouch and oops: How descriptive and expressive meaning interact. Available from Semantics Archive.
Krifka M. (2001) Quantifiying into question acts. Natural Language Semantics 9: 1–40
Ladd D.R. (1996) Intonational phonology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Lasersohn P. (1999) Pragmatic halos. Language 75: 522–551
Lasersohn P. (2005) Context dependence, disagreement, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy 28: 643–686
Lewis D. (1973) Causation. Journal of Philosophy 70: 556–567
Mastop, R. (2005). What can you do? Imperative mood in semantic theory. Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam.
McCready, E. (2005). The dynamics of particles. Ph.D. thesis, UTexas-Austin.
McCready, E. (2006a). English sentence-initial man. In C. Ebert & C. Endriss (Eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 10 (Vol. 44 of ZASPIL–ZAS Papers in Linguistics, pp. 211–223).
McCready E. (2006b) Japanese yo: Its semantics and pragmatics. Sprache und Datenverarbeitung 30: 25–34
McCready, E. (to appear). Particles: Dynamics vs. utility. In Y. Takubo (Ed.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics 16. CSLI.
McCready, E., & Asher, N. (2006). Modal subordination in Japanese: Dynamics and evidentiality. In A. Eilam, T. Scheffler, & J. Tauberer (Eds.), Penn working papers in linguistics 12.1, pp. 237–249.
McCready E., Ogata N. (2007) Evidentiality, modality, and probability. Linguistics and Philosophy 30(2): 147–206
Mitchell, J. (1986). The formal semantics of point of view. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Muskens R., van Benthem J., Visser A. (1997) Dynamics. In: van Benthem J., ter Meulen A. (eds) Handbook of Logic and Language. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 587–648
Noda, H. (2002). Syuuzyosi no kinoo [The functions of sentence-final particles]. In Modariti [Modality]. Tokyo: Kurosio Press.
Nouwen R. (2007) On appositives and dynamic binding. Research on Language and Computation 5(1): 87–102
Ogihara T. (1996) Tense, attitudes and scope. Kluwer, Dordrecht
Pierrehumbert J., Beckman J. (1988) Japanese tone structure. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Pierrehumbert J., Hirschberg J. (1990) The meaning of intonation in the interpretation of discourse. In: Cohen P., Morgan J., Pollack M. (eds) Intentions in communication. MIT Press, Cambridge
Portner, P. (2004). The semantics of imperatives within a theory of clause types. In R. Young (Ed.), Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory 14. CLC Publications.
Potts, C. (2005). The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford University Press. Revised version of 2003 UCSC dissertation.
Potts C. (2007) The expressive dimension. Theoretical Linguistics 33: 165–198
Rett, J. (2008). Degree modification in natural language. Ph.D. thesis, Rutgers.
Roberts C. (1989) Modal subordination and pronominal anaphora in discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy 12: 683–721
Roberts, C. (1996). Information structure: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. In OSUWPL Volume 49: Papers in Semantics. The Ohio State University Department of Linguistics.
Searle J. (1969) Speech acts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Siegel M.E.A. (2002) Like: The discourse particle and semantics. Journal of Semantics 19: 35–71
Siegel M.E.A. (2006) Biscuit conditionals: Quantification over potential literal acts. Linguistics and Philosophy 29(2): 167–203
Stalnaker R. (1979) Assertion. In: Cole P. (eds) Syntax and semantics 9. Academic Press, New York
Suzuki Kose, Y. (1997). Japanese sentence-final particles: A pragmatic principle approach. Ph.D. thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Takubo Y., Kinsui S. (1997) Discourse management in terms of mental spaces. Journal of Pragmatics 28: 741–758
van Benthem J. (2004) Dynamic logic for belief revision. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 14(2): 129–155
van der Sandt R. (1992) Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics 9: 333–377
van Rooij R. (2003a) Negative polarity items in questions. Journal of Semantics 20: 239–273
van Rooij R. (2003b) Quality and quantity of information exchange. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 12: 423–451
Vanderveken, D. (1990). Meaning and speech acts (2 Vols). Cambridge University Press.
Villalba, X. (2004). Exclamatives and negation. Technical report, Universitat Autònama de Barcelona. Report de Recerca GGT-2004-02.
von Fintel, K. (1994). Restrictions on quantifier domains. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachussetts at Amherst. Published by GLSA.
von Fintel K. (1999) NPI-licensing, Strawson-entailment, and context dependency. Journal of Semantics 16: 97–148
von Fintel, K., & Gillies, T. (2008). Must ... stay ... strong. Manuscript, MIT and University of Michigan.
Wang L., Reese B., McCready E. (2005) The projection problem of nominal appositives. Snippets 10: 13–14
Westmoreland, R. (1998). Information and intonation in natural language modality. Ph.D. thesis, Indiana University.
Yamada T. (2007) Logical dynamics of commands and obligations. In: Washio T., Sato K., Takeda H., Inokuchi A. (eds) New frontiers in artificial intelligence: JSAI 2006 conference and workshops, LNCS. Springer, Berlin, pp 133–146
Zanuttini R., Portner P. (2003) Exclamative clauses at the syntax-semantics interface. Language 79(1): 39–81
Zimmermann, M. (to appear). Discourse particles in the left periphery. In B. Shaer, W. Frey, & C. Maienborn (Eds.), Dislocated elements in discourse. Oxford: Routledge.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
McCready, E. What man does. Linguist and Philos 31, 671–724 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-009-9052-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-009-9052-7