Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What man does

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Linguistics and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aikhenvald A. (2004) Evidentiality. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asher N., Lascarides A. (2003) Logics of conversation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Asher N., McCready E. (2007) Were, would, must and a compositional account of counterfactuals. Journal of Semantics 24(2): 93–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barker C. (2002) The dynamics of vagueness. Linguistics and Philosophy 25(1): 1–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Benz, A., Jäger, G., van Rooij, R. (eds) (2006) Game theory and pragmatics. Palgrave, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, C. (2008). Decisions, dynamics and the Japanese particle yo. Manuscript, UMass-Amherst.

  • Fodor J. (2002) Concepts. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank, A. (1997). Context dependence in modal constructions. Ph.D. thesis, University of Stuttgart.

  • Gärdenfors P. (1988) Knowledge in flux. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Geurts, B. (1995). Presupposing. Ph.D. thesis, University of Stuttgart.

  • Geurts B. (1999) Presupposition and pronouns. Elsevier, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Geurts B. (2007) Really fucking brilliant. Theoretical Linguistics 33: 209–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groenendijk J., Stokhof M. (1991) Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14: 39–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groenendijk J., Stokhof M. (1997) Questions. In Handbook of logic and language. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Harel P., Kozen D., Tiuryn J. (2000) Dynamic logic. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiesling S. (2004) Dude. American Speech 79(3): 281–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein E. (1980) A semantics for positive and comparative adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy 4: 1–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kölbel M. (2002) Truth without objectivity. Routledge, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ladd D.R. (1996) Intonational phonology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasersohn P. (1999) Pragmatic halos. Language 75: 522–551

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lasersohn P. (2005) Context dependence, disagreement, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy 28: 643–686

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis D. (1973) Causation. Journal of Philosophy 70: 556–567

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ogihara T. (1996) Tense, attitudes and scope. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pierrehumbert J., Beckman J. (1988) Japanese tone structure. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel M.E.A. (2002) Like: The discourse particle and semantics. Journal of Semantics 19: 35–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel M.E.A. (2006) Biscuit conditionals: Quantification over potential literal acts. Linguistics and Philosophy 29(2): 167–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stalnaker R. (1979) Assertion. In: Cole P. (eds) Syntax and semantics 9. Academic Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Benthem J. (2004) Dynamic logic for belief revision. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 14(2): 129–155

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Sandt R. (1992) Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics 9: 333–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Rooij R. (2003a) Negative polarity items in questions. Journal of Semantics 20: 239–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Rooij R. (2003b) Quality and quantity of information exchange. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 12: 423–451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Zanuttini R., Portner P. (2003) Exclamative clauses at the syntax-semantics interface. Language 79(1): 39–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann, M. (to appear). Discourse particles in the left periphery. In B. Shaer, W. Frey, & C. Maienborn (Eds.), Dislocated elements in discourse. Oxford: Routledge.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of English, Aoyama Gakuin University, 4-4-25 Shibuya, Shibuya-ku, Tokyo, 150-8366, Japan

    Elin McCready

Authors
  1. Elin McCready
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elin McCready.

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-009-9052-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation