Skip Navigation

Journal of Semantics 2002 19(1):35-71; doi:10.1093/jos/19.1.35
© 2002 by Oxford University Press
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Siegel, M. E. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Like: The Discourse Particle and Semantics

Muffy E. A. Siegel1

1 Department of English 022-29, Temple University, 1114 Berks Street Philadelphia, PA 19122, e-mail: siegelm{at}astro.temple.edu

Using data from interviews with high school students, I first adduce evidence that lends support to Schourup's (1985) claim that the United States English adolescent hedge like is a discourse particle signalling a possible slight mismatch between words and meaning. Such a particle would generally be included in a grammar in a post-compositional pragmatic component, but, surprisingly, like also affects basic semantic attributes. These include both truth-conditions and the weak/strong distinction—though only in existential there and sluicing sentences. I argue that the differential behaviour of like in various constructions selecting weak NP's stems from the restricted free variable it introduces, a variable which only there and sluicing require. This variable is available for binding, quantifier interpretation and other syntactic-semantic processes, yet is pragmatically conditioned. Indeed, I show that, due to its formal properties, like can be interpreted only during the assignment of model-theoretic denotations to expressions, along the lines of Lasersohn's (1999) pragmatic haloes. These results support the idea that weak/strong is not a unitary distinction and suggest that the various components of grammars must be organized to allow information from pragmatic/discourse elements to affect basic compositional semantics.

Received 07.07.01. Revised 15.11.01.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 American SpeechHome page
A. D'Arcy
LIKE AND LANGUAGE IDEOLOGY: DISENTANGLING FACT FROM FICTION
American Speech, December 1, 2007; 82(4): 386 - 419.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Discourse StudiesHome page
J. E. F. Tree
Placing like in telling stories
Discourse Studies, December 1, 2006; 8(6): 723 - 743.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 American SpeechHome page
A. D'Arcy
LEXICAL REPLACEMENT AND THE LIKE(S)
American Speech, December 1, 2006; 81(4): 339 - 357.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 American SpeechHome page
S. F. KIESLING
DUDE
American Speech, September 1, 2004; 79(3): 281 - 305.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.