[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-289990-105":59,"doc-detail-289990-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","proceedings-of-salt-33-two-question-embedding-strategies-and-answer-orientedness","Proceedings of SALT 33 - Two question-embedding strategies and answer-orientedness","","Abstract Japanese and Turkish attitude predicates combine with two main kinds of embedded clauses: nominalizations and clauses introduced by the morphemes to and diye. The paper analyzes their interrogative variants, arguing that nominalizations yield answer-oriented inferences with responsive predicates, while diye/to interrogatives are question-oriented and entail that the attitude holder linguistically produces the interrogative. A compositional fragment is proposed for how attitude predicates take nominalizations as arguments and how diye/to-clauses enrich meanings via production inferences.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/proceedings-of-salt-33-two-question-embedding-strategies-and-answer-orientedness/289990/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/proceedings-of-salt-33-two-question-embedding-strategies-and-answer-orientedness/289990.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Violet","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-18","2026-09-17",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":34},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What two embedded-clause types does the paper focus on?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"It focuses on nominalizations and clauses introduced by the morphemes to and diye, and studies their interrogative variants.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"How do nominalizations and diye/to interrogatives differ in orientation?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"Nominalizations give rise to answer-oriented inferences with responsive predicates, whereas diye/to interrogatives are question-oriented and require a linguistic production inference by the attitude holder.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"What compositional proposal does the paper make?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"It proposes a fragment where attitude predicates take nominalizations as arguments and may impose semantic restrictions, while diye/to-clauses modify and enrich attitude meanings through an inference about linguistic production.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},289990,1789639419,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":34,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":129,"read_time":144,"preview_page_count":4},4398048950312,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/400002538284de19e3c?_k=1778320343897328908","Proceedings of SALT 33: 320–340, 2023  \nTwo question-embedding strategies and answer-orientedness*  \nDeniz Özyıldız Universität Konstanz  \nWataru Uegaki University of Edinburgh  \nAbstract Japanese and Turkish attitude predicates combine with two main kinds of embedded clauses: Nominalizations, and clauses introduced by the morphemes to and diye. We describe their interrogative variants, showing that nominalizations give rise to answer-oriented inferences with responsive predicates (e.g., factivity, belief), but that diye/to interrogatives are question-oriented and entail that the attitude holder linguistically produces the interrogative. We propose a compositional fragment where attitude predicates take nominalizations as arguments, which they may impose semantic restrictions on, and where diye/to-clauses modify and enrich attitude meanings with a linguistic production inference.  \nKeywords: attitude verbs, clause embedding, questions, quotation  \n1 Introduction  \nLanguages have different ways of combining clausal constituents with attitude predicates. In this paper, we focus on combining attitude predicates with nominalized clauses, in (1), and clauses introduced by the morphemes diye and to, in (2), in Turkish and in Japanese (respectively in a. and b.) .  \n(1) a. Ai [ kar ya˘g-dı˘g-ın-a ] ¸sa¸sırdı .  \nAi snow fall-NMZ-3 S . POSS-DAT was.surprised  \nb. Ai-wa [ yuki-ga hutta-no-ni ] odoroita  \nAi-TOP snow-NOM fall-NMZ-DAT was.surprised  \nAi was surprised that it was snowing. ⇒ p ∧Bap  \n(2) a. Ai [ kar ya˘g-ıyor diye ] ¸sa¸sırdı .  \nAi snow fall-PRES.3 S DIYE was.surprised  \nb. Ai-wa [ yuki-ga hutta-to ] odoroita  \nAi-TOP snow-NOM fell-TO was.surprised  \nAi was surprised, thinking “it’s snowing.” ⇏ p  \n* We thank the participants of the MECORE workshop in Edinburgh and at SALT 33, and our reviewers. This work is funded by the project “MECORE: Cross-linguistic investigation of meaning-driven combinatorial restrictions in clausal embedding”(AHRC: AH/V002716; DFG: RO 4247/5-1) .  \n©2023 Özyıldız, Uegaki  \nTwo question-embedding strategies and answer-orientedness  \nAs is the case here, the same predicate may often combine with either type of clause, with the choice giving rise to interpretive differences. One difference visible here is that the sentences in (1) are factive, where “be surprised” combines with nominalized declaratives, while the ones in (2) are non-veridical, with D/T-declaratives. This phenomenon, known as a factivity alternation, has been studied in a variety of languages for declarative complements.1 A second difference, which has received less attention in the literature and will play a central role here, is that diye and to give rise to a linguistic production inference. This inference, rendered into English with the adjunct clause thinking “S”, requires that the attitude holder say, mentally entertain, or otherwise produce the clause that diye and to introduce.2  \nMany predicates that combine with nominalized and D/T-declaratives also combine with nominalized and D/T-interrogatives, in (3) and (4) . (For the nominal status of Japanese embedded questions like in (3b), which don’t feature an overt nominalizer, see Tomioka 2020.) These two interrogative embedding strategies form the novel empirical landscape we explore in this paper.  \n(3) a. Ai [ kar-ın ne zaman ya˘g-dı˘g-ın-a ] ¸sa¸sır-dı .  \nAi snow-GEN when fall-NMZ-3 S . POSS-DAT was.surprised  \nb. Ai-wa [ yuki-ga itsu hutta-ka-ni ] odoroita.  \nAi-TOP snow-NOM when fell-Q-DAT was.surprised  \nAi was surprised by when it had snowed.  \n(4) a. Ai [ kar ne zaman ya˘g-dı diye ] ¸sa¸sır-dı .  \nAi snow when fall-PST.3 S DIYE was.surprised  \nb. Ai-wa [ yuki-ga itsu huttano-ka-to ] odoroita.  \nAi-TOP snow-NOM when fell-Q-TO was.surprised  \nAi was surprised, thinking “when did it snow?”  \nHere too, the choice of a nominalization vs. a D/T-clause makes an interpretive difference. The examples in (3) imply that Ai believes and was surprised by the true answer to the qu","cbCaijWCFHyNpPyW","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaijWCFHyNpPyW","pdf",189512,21,"English","# 1 Introduction\n## Attitude predicates and clause embedding strategies","[{\"question\":\"What two embedded-clause types does the paper focus on?\",\"answer\":\"It focuses on nominalizations and clauses introduced by the morphemes to and diye, and studies their interrogative variants.\"},{\"question\":\"How do nominalizations and diye/to interrogatives differ in orientation?\",\"answer\":\"Nominalizations give rise to answer-oriented inferences with responsive predicates, whereas diye/to interrogatives are question-oriented and require a linguistic production inference by the attitude holder.\"},{\"question\":\"What compositional proposal does the paper make?\",\"answer\":\"It proposes a fragment where attitude predicates take nominalizations as arguments and may impose semantic restrictions, while diye/to-clauses modify and enrich attitude meanings through an inference about linguistic production.\"}]","Proceedings of SALT 33 - Two question-embedding strategies and answer-orientedness | PDF",53]