trustme.bro/r/…
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim
Natural languages employ specific recurring strategies to provide unambiguous answers to negative yes-no questions.
the verdict
SUPPORTED
the evidence backs this
refutedsupported
the weight of evidence
3 sources for · 0 against

Peer-reviewed linguistic research supports the existence of recurring universal strategies—integrating lexical, syntactic, prosodic, and gestural elements—for responding to negative polar questions.

Evidence for · 3
2015 · cited by 13
AbstractIn this paper we investigate the role of prosody and gesture in the interpretation of
See more details
The analysis

rails:sufficiency:supported:single_source:for=1+2p:against=0+0p | v55:sufficiency

More for · 2
2018 · cited by 4
Among languages that employ specialized particles for answering polar questions, two major groups are known: Positive-Negative (P-N) and Agreement-Disagreement (A-D). English and Italian are examples of the former group, Japanese an example of the latter. It has occasionally been remarked in the literature that at least in some P-N languages a narrow focus in a negative polar question affects the choice of responding particles: namely, the answering pattern shifts to A-D. In the present contribution, this claim is thoroughly tested experimentally with two forced choice experiments that investigate the choice of responding particles in answers to Italian negative polar questions both with and without narrow foci. Our results bring clear support to the claim of the exceptional answering pattern to negative polar questions with narrow foci. Two candidate accounts are presented, in accord with the two main current lines of research on responding particles: an ellipsis account and an anaphoric account. In both cases, we will argue that a crucial role is played by the interaction of the narrow focus with sentential negation in the questions.
2015 · cited by 2
Previous research has proposed that languages diverge with respect to how their speakers confirm and contradict negative questions. Taking into account the classification between truth-based and polarity-based languages, this paper is mainly concerned with the expression of REJECT (a semantic operation that signals a contradiction move with respect to the common ground, along Krifka's lines) in two languages belonging to two typologically distinct answering systems, namely Catalan (polarity-based) and Russian (a mixed system using polarity-based, truth-based, and echoic strategies). This investigation has two goals. First, to assess empirically the relevance of prosodic and gestural patterns in the interpretation of confirming and rejecting responses to negative polar questions. Second, to test the claim that in fact speakers resort to strikingly similar universal strategies at the time of expressing rejecting answers to discourse accessible negative assertions and negative polar questions, namely the use of linguistic units that encode REJECT in combination with ASSERT. The results of our investigation support the existence of a universal answering system for rejecting negative polar questions that integrates lexical and syntactic strategies with prosodic and gestural patterns, and instantiate the REJECT and ASSERT operators. We will also discuss the implications these results have for the truth-based vs. polarity-based taxonomy.
Everything we examined (3)
This check searched the claim as stated. It did not run a separate search for evidence against it.
  1. Is there a universal answering strategy for rejecting negative propositions? Typological evidence on the use of prosody and gesture.peer-reviewedno side taken
  2. (Dis)agreement, polarity, and focus: Answering negative polar questions in Italianpeer-reviewedno side taken
  3. Prosody and gesture in the interpretation of yes-answers to negative yes/no-questionspeer-reviewedno side taken
This receipt carries no identity, shared or not. Sharing publishes your connection to it, not your data.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
trust me, bro: win the argument, pass the class, survive peer review.
This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work · Dispute this receipt