Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 9 (EISS 9 ... - CSSP - CNRS

More documents

Recommendations

Info

degree expression out of a seemingly definite DP. Secondly, this DP is interpreted as indefinite. Accordingly, we can follow Heim (1995) and assume that the definite article is only superficially definite but actually an indefinite determiner. This would allow us to extract sau and by the same token would give us the observed indefinite interpretation. However, the question of why there is a mismatch between the observed form and interpretation in external-EI constructions remains unanswered in this approach, like in the construction-based approaches. Note, furthermore, that this analysis renders the argumentation from the previous subsection obsolete, for, by assumption, there is no definite article in the first place. Besides this mismatch approach, it is also possible that there are more structural strategies available. For instance, a possible explanation could be based on the assumption of a functional projection for a definite interpretation, like, for example, the S(trong)DP in Zamparelli 2000. If it can then be shown that an EI in Q 0 prohibits the determiner from ending up in SD 0 (either by blocking movement or by disallowing the entire projection), the article has to be interpreted indefinitely. However, even in such an approach, the mismatch between the indefinite interpretation and the requirement of a definite determiner remains mysterious. 5. Conclusion In this paper, we have addressed some of the puzzling properties exhibited by a particular class of degree elements in informal varieties of German which we called expressive intensifiers. What is special about these expressions is that they can occur in a position preceding the determiner where they nevertheless still intensify the adjective inside the DP. This position is not available for standard degree expressions. We have dealt with what we take to be the four most important questions raised by EIs, namely the questions of (i) what the position is in which external EIs are located; (ii) why only EIs but not standard degree elements like sehr ‘very’ can occur in that position; (iii) why external EIs are restricted to definite articles; and (iv) why the definite article is interpreted as indefinite. First, we assume that when in external position, EIs take up the head position of the QP, an additional extended functional projection of the NP that embeds the DP and whose existence is argued for by Matthewson (2001) and Giusti (1991) on independent grounds. Regarding the second question, we follow Corver’s (1997a) split degree system hypothesis, according to which there are two kinds of degree elements. The first group, the Deg-elements, to which sau and other EIs belong, are located higher in the extended projection of the adjective and therefore can be moved to the head of the QP. In contrast, motivated by other differences between sau and sehr, we have analyzed sehr as a Qeg-element which is located below the DegP. According to Travis’ (1984) head movement constraint, they cannot be moved to Q 0 because with Deg 0 , there is an intervening head position which blocks this long movement. Next we showed how the restriction to definite determiners can be explained within Matthewson’s Q-D-split system. Since an answer to this depends on how indefinite articles are analyzed, we sketched two possibilities both of which lead to the same explanation of the restriction, namely that the Q-position is not available as a landing side for sau. For the last question, we highlighted parallels between superlatives in their comparative reading and external EIs. Following Heim (1995) it could be assumed that the definite article is actually an indefinite one, which solved the extraction and interpretation obstacle. However, this requires treating the restriction to definite articles as an arbitrary part of the construction. All of the four questions are worth studying in much more detail. And given the fact that we have not addressed the precise lexical semantics of EIs in this paper either, it should be ob- 164
vious that expressive intensifiers in German are an interesting subject for further investigations, especially since they combine interesting syntactic and semantic properties that do not match up as expected. This makes them an ideal object for exploring the syntax-semantics interface of not-well studied constructions. References Abney, Steven. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. MIT dissertation. Androutsopoulos, Jannis K. 1998. Deutsche Jugendsprache. Frankfurt: Lang. Bach, Emmon. 1967. Have and be in English syntax. Language 43.462–485. Beck, Sigrid. 2012. Comparison constructions. Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, ed. by Klaus von Heusinger, Claudia Maienborn, and Paul Portner, vol. 2„ 1341– 1390. Berlin: de Gruyter. Boeckx, Cedric, and Sandra Stjepanovic. 2001. Head-ing toward PF. Linguistic Inquiry 32.345–355. Bresnan, Joan W. 1973. Syntax of the comparative clause construction in English. Linguistic Inquiry 4.275–343. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. by Michael Kenstowicz. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Corver, Norbert. 1997a. The internal syntax of the Dutch extended adjectival projection. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15.289–368. Corver, Norbert. 1997b. Much-support as last resort. Linguistic Inquiry 28.119–164. von Fintel, Kai. 2004. Would you believe it? The king of France is back! Descriptions and beyond, ed. by Marga Reimer and Anne Bezuidenhout, 269–296. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Epstein, Samuel D., Hisatsugu Kitahara, Ruriko Kawashima, and Erich Groat. 1998. A derivational approach to syntactic relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ferguson, Scott. 1996. Shortest move and object case checking. Minimal ideas, ed. by Werner Abraham, Samuel D. Epstein, Höskuldur Thrainsson, and C. Jan-Wouter Zwart, 97–112. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Giusti, Giuliana. 1991. The categorial status of quantified nominals. Linguistische Berichte 136.438–454. Gutzmann, Daniel. 2011. Expressive modifiers & mixed expressives. Empirical issues in syntax and semantics 8, ed. by Olivier Bonami and Patricia Cabredo-Hofherr, 123–141. Online: http:// www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss8/gutzmann-eiss8.pdf. Heim, Irene. 1995. Notes on superlatives. Ms. Online: http://semanticsarchive.net/ Archive/TI1MTlhZ/Superlative.pdf. Heim, Irene. 2001. Degree operators and scope. Audiatur vox sapientiae, ed. by Caroline Féry and Wolfgang Sternefeld, 214–239. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Horn, Laurence R. 2008. On F-implicature. Myth-analysis and rehabilitation. Ms. Online: http:// www.eecs.umich.edu/~rthomaso/lpw08/Horn_LPW.pdf. Jayez, Jacques, and Corinne Rossari. 2004. Parentheticals as conventional implicatures. Handbook of French semantics, ed. by Francis Corblin and Henriëtte de Swart, 211–229. Stanford, CA: CSLI. Kallulli, Dalina, and Antonia Rothmayr. 2008. The syntax and semantics of indefinite determiner doubling constructions in varieties of German. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 11.95– 136. Kennedy, Christopher. 1999. Projecting the adjective: The syntax and semantics of gradability and comparison. New York: Garland. Kennedy, Christopher. 2007. Vagueness and grammar: The semantics of relative and absolute gradable adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy 30.1–45. Kennedy, Christopher, and Louise McNally. 2005. Scale structure, degree modification, and the semantics of gradable predicates. Language 81.345–381. Kirschbaum, Ilja. 2002. Schrecklich nett und voll verrückt. Muster der Adjektiv-Intensivierung im Deutschen. University of Düsseldorf dissertation. Online: http://deposit.d-nb. de/cgi-bin/dokserv?idn=969264437&dok_var=d1&dok_ext=pdf&filename= 165
Page 1 and 2:
EISS 9 Empirical Issues in Syntax a
Page 3 and 4:
Contents Preface v Valentina Bianch
Page 5:
Preface The ninth volume of the ser
Page 8 and 9:
contexts; we provide experimental e
Page 10 and 11:
which we included random intercepts
Page 12 and 13:
• Locality condition: The proposi
Page 14 and 15:
[[(1B′)]] f = {invite(john, x) |
Page 16 and 17:
focus projection, and require that
Page 18 and 19:
The term ‘root clause’ was intr
Page 20 and 21:
pared the degree of metrical promin
Page 22 and 23:
Focus in situ + negative tag Focus
Page 24 and 25:
Horvath, Julia. 2010. “Discourse-
Page 26 and 27:
languages: Hungarian (H) and Romani
Page 28 and 29:
attach-wh usually licenses a single
Page 30 and 31:
on’ requires an overt preposition
Page 32 and 33:
of syntactic priming: the stricter
Page 34 and 35:
(43) Nu văd cum și, mai important
Page 36 and 37:
for certain values to be identical
Page 38 and 39:
ing the CNJ-LST proposed for coordi
Page 40 and 41:
oth of these cases, as well as the
Page 42 and 43:
References Abeillé, Anne. 2005. Le
Page 44 and 45:
the addressee by virtue of linguist
Page 46 and 47:
dressee is enticed by the imperativ
Page 48 and 49:
some way. She notes that it is not
Page 50 and 51:
. A: Give me an aspirin! B: # I don
Page 52 and 53:
Effective preference structures can
Page 54 and 55:
the content gets realized (i.e. he
Page 56 and 57:
to the principle in (39), which aim
Page 58 and 59:
Kaufmann follows the second strateg
Page 60 and 61:
5. Portner 2005, 2007: a dedicated
Page 62 and 63:
to realize the imperative once he a
Page 64 and 65:
epresentation and defeasible reason
Page 66 and 67:
equative reading can be paraphrased
Page 68 and 69:
‘the greatest French soldier’ t
Page 70 and 71:
2.4. Plurals 2.4.1. Plural definite
Page 72 and 73:
group of people constituting the on
Page 74 and 75:
3. A(n) sole/*only The solution to
Page 76 and 77:
ichest i : richest ii :: only : sol
Page 78 and 79:
In the case of a singular definite
Page 80 and 81:
The lexical entries we have given f
Page 82 and 83:
Strawson, P. F. 1950. On referring.
Page 84 and 85:
In this paper, I show that a dialec
Page 86 and 87:
(3) […] argretter, qu’dins ch
Page 88 and 89:
2.3. Are there any restrictions on
Page 90 and 91:
stand to the right of que2, which,
Page 92 and 93:
heads FinP (Bovetto 2002, López 20
Page 94 and 95:
(24) a. j’prétinds qu’à l’h
Page 96 and 97:
. *T’as raison Colas, faut tacher
Page 98 and 99:
6. Conclusion This paper shows that
Page 100 and 101:
Appendix Frequency of DCC for embed
Page 102 and 103:
In this paper, I provide empirical
Page 104 and 105:
subjects are realized in a cleft to
Page 106 and 107:
problem with the examples in (11),
Page 108 and 109:
continuations chosen after exclusiv
Page 110 and 111:
The questions were of two forms: ei
Page 112 and 113:
quantified lexical subject any elem
Page 114 and 115:
QUD:Qui a corrigé les copies? SF S
Page 116 and 117:
Finally, the ranking proposed, with
Page 118 and 119:
Onea, Edgar, and David Beaver. 2011
Page 120 and 121: semantics of these constructions ha
Page 122 and 123: filter. A quantifier like two sailo
Page 124 and 125: are not principal filters, can be c
Page 126 and 127: (22) monotone increasing NPs like a
Page 128 and 129: the equation of the formulas in (27
Page 130 and 131: presuppose the non-emptiness of the
Page 132 and 133: tune with the well-known observatio
Page 134 and 135: Keenan, Edward. 1996. The semantics
Page 136 and 137: (2) Paul veut que nous {soyons SUBJ
Page 138 and 139: (8) Le professeur subodore que les
Page 140 and 141: • verbs describing a course of ac
Page 142 and 143: The semantico-pragmatic condition h
Page 144 and 145: force is stronger than that of the
Page 146 and 147: dire (‘say’) or suggérer (‘s
Page 148 and 149: However, it must be stressed that t
Page 150 and 151: If it is the case that those moves
Page 152 and 153: certain environments. Again, the re
Page 154 and 155: Gross, Maurice. 1978. Correspondanc
Page 156 and 157: Semantically, the difference betwee
Page 158 and 159: (14) a. Descriptive meaning of (13)
Page 160 and 161: What is crucial here is that the en
Page 162 and 163: (30) a. Heute steigt sau die coole
Page 164 and 165: In the following, we will give a te
Page 166 and 167: These contrasts in their syntactic
Page 168 and 169: (50) [ QP je- [ DP der [ NP Student
Page 172 and 173: 969264437.pdf. Koopman, Hilda, and
Page 174 and 175: semantic representation and computa
Page 176 and 177: NP [AGR=[PERS=3,NUM=sing]] John S N
Page 178 and 179: Class CanSubj S Class DirObj VP Cla
Page 180 and 181: a. ⎡ ⎤ causation [ ] activity C
Page 182 and 183: lexical meaning PO pattern DO patte
Page 184 and 185: ⎡ ⎤ a. S causation [ ] NP [I= 1
Page 186 and 187: Class VSpine syntactic dimension VP
Page 188 and 189: sends ⎡ ⎤ causation EFFECTOR 8
Page 190 and 191: Crabbé, Benoit. 2005. Grammatical
Page 192 and 193: Claim 2. Semantic composition of ve
Page 194 and 195: (7) yo-k2nol-ú 3Z/N.SG.PAT-rain-ST
Page 196 and 197: inanimate are not selected by verba
Page 198 and 199: in (25), or from transitive to intr
Page 200 and 201: (26) a. ⎡ ⎤ English-transitive-
Page 202 and 203: Abstracting away from the particula
Page 204 and 205: As shown by the statement of the no
Page 206 and 207: (36) Áhs2 ni-ka-nláht-a-ke 2-té-
Page 208 and 209: coincident and dualic prefixes, mea
Page 210 and 211: aises, of course, the question of w
Page 213 and 214: A finer look at predicate decomposi
Page 215 and 216: kill is compatible with wide variet
Page 217 and 218: Do these relations correspond to di
Page 219 and 220: paper. The wider claim is that sube
Page 221 and 222:
More significantly, all involve dir
Page 223 and 224:
assume a syntactic view of event st
Page 225 and 226:
other heads. Secondly, spell-out pa
Page 227 and 228:
Finally, (53) shows the inchoative
Page 229 and 230:
⏟ AA ⏟ (61) [ v P … v TR [ Ak
Page 231 and 232:
Negation-resistant polarity items A
Page 233 and 234:
To summarize, these indefinites can
Page 235 and 236:
covert alternative-sensitive operat
Page 237 and 238:
(17) a. any book = ∃x∈D. x is a
Page 239 and 240:
tion, negative quantifiers and with
Page 241 and 242:
Since PPIs are endowed with the [+D
Page 243 and 244:
4.5. Extra-clausal negation A cruci
Page 245 and 246:
What this data shows us is that PPI
Page 247 and 248:
Prima facie it appears to be the ca
show all

Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 9 (EISS 9 ... - CSSP - CNRS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?