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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Focus in situ + negative tag Focus ex situ + negative tag { }υ′ { * } { * }υ [ * ] [ * ]ι ( * ) ( * ) ( * )φ Si era messa [un ArMAni] CF non uno straccetto di H&M (she) wore an Armani (dress), not a cheap dress from H&M { }υ′ { * } { * }υ [ * ] [ * ]ι ( * ) ( * ) ( * ) ( * )φ [Un ArMAni] CF si era messa non uno straccetto di H&M an Armani (dress) (she) wore, not a cheap dress from H&M Table 5. Metrical representations of the experimental sentences in Condition 2 This accounts for the lower rate of preference for focus ex situ in Condition 2 with respect to Condition 3. 5. Summary In this paper we provided experimental evidence that supports a distinction between two interpretive imports that may associate with a focus structure: (a) a merely contrastive import of a focus structure and (b) a corrective import. We showed that the specific import of a focus structure affects the distribution of the focus element in Italian: in particular, only the corrective import can license the ex situ position (‘focus movement’). We proposed that the crucial difference relates to the fact that the corrective import has an impact on the conversational dynamics, and therefore, it can only be licensed in discourseactive clauses: only the latter can convey a conversational move, that is, a specific proposal to update the discourse context. We then sketched a cartographic implementation of this insight, whereby the corrective import is licensed in the left periphery of discourse-active clauses. This explains why only corrective focus, but not merely contrastive focus, can target a left-peripheral ex situ position. The surface optionality of such movement was resolved at the syntax-prosody interface. We proposed that the focus element always enters a dependency with the left-peripheral position, but at the interface, it is possible to spell out either the higher or the lower copy of the dependency. The first option, however, gives rise to a marked prosodic structure violating the rightmostness requirement, since the fronted focus element, bearing the main prominence at the ι-level, is not in the rightmost position. This view is crucially based on the observation that in Italian, the post-focal material is not extra-metrical (Bocci and Avesani 2011), and hence rightmostness is a violable constraint. We conclude with a general remark. Focus is a multi-layer phenomenon, affecting different aspects of interpretation (Krifka 2007). Previous accounts have related the phenomenon of ‘focus movement’ to the semantic core, that is, the determination of the domain of focus. Our results suggest that focus movement may be triggered by other aspects of interpretation lying outside the semantic core: in particular, those which relate to the conversational dynamics. 16
References Alboiu, Gabriela. 2003. Operator Asymmetries in Romanian: Syntax and/or Phonology? In Ana Pérez- Leroux and Yves Roberge (eds.), Romance linguistics: Theory and acquisition.3–18, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Asher, Nicholas. 2004. Discourse semantics and the Focus/Background distinction. In Hans Kamp and Barbara Partee (eds.), Context-dependence in the analysis of linguistic meaning.29–60. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Baayen, Harald. 2008. Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Beyssade, Claire; Elizabeth Delais-Roussarie; Jean-Marie Marandin; and Annie Rialland. 2011. Ground-Focus articulation in the Grammar. Online: http://www.llf.cnrs.fr/Gens/Marandin/Text-FGA.Definitif.pdf. Bianchi, Valentina, and Mara Frascarelli. 2010. Is topic a root phenomenon? Iberia 2.43–88. Bianchi, Valentina. 2011. On ‘focus movement’ in Italian. To appear in Ángel Jiménez Fernández (ed.), Information Structure, agreement and the CP. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Bobaljik, Jonathan D. 2002. A-Chains at the PF-interface: Copies and “covert” movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20.197–267. Bocci, Giuliano, and Cinzia Avesani. 2011. Phrasal prominences do not need pitch movements: postfocal phrasal heads in Italian. Proceedings of Interspeech-2011.1357–1360. Bocci, Giuliano. 2009. The syntax-prosody interface from a cartographic perspective: Evidence from Italian. To be published (Philadelphia: John Benjamins). Boersma, Paul, and David Weenink. 2012. Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Online: http://www.praat.org/. Brunetti, Lisa. 2004. A unification of focus. Padova: Unipress. Brunetti, Lisa. 2009. Discourse functions of fronted foci in Italian and Spanish. In Andreas Dufter and Daniel Jacob (eds.), Focus and background in Romance languages. 43–82. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Cinque, Guglielmo, and Luigi Rizzi. 2008. The cartography of syntactic structures. Studies in Linguistics – CISCL Working Papers 2.42–58. Dayal Veneeta, and Jane Grimshaw. 2009. Subordination at the interface: the quasi-subordination hypothesis. Online: http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/%7Edayal/QSpaper.pdf. Emonds, Joseph. 1970. Root and structure-preserving transformations. PhD Thesis, MIT. Fanselow, Gisbert, and Denisa Lenertova. 2010. Left peripheral focus: mismatches between syntax and information structure. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29.169–209. Farkas, Donka F. and Kim B. Bruce. 2010. On reacting to assertions and polar questions. Journal of Semantics 27.81–118. Gärtner, Hans-Martin. 2002. On the force of V2 declaratives. Theoretical Linguistics 28.33–42. Grice, Martine; Maria Paola D’Imperio; Michelina Savino; and Cinzia Avesani. 2005. Towards a strategy for ToBI labelling varieties of Italian. In Sun-Ah Jun (ed.) Prosodic typology: The phonology of intonation and phrasing. New York: Oxford University Press. Haegeman, Liliane. 2004. Topicalization, CLLD and the left periphery. In Claudia Maienborn, Werner Frey, and Bernard Shaer (eds.), ZAS Papers in Linguistics 35: Proceedings of the Dislocated Elements Workshop.157–192. Haegeman, Liliane. 2011. The syntax of MCP: Deriving the truncation account. Online: LingBuzz/001246. Hartmann, Katharina, and Malte Zimmermann. 2007. In place – out of place? Focus in Hausa. In Kerstin Schwabe & Susanne Winkler (eds.), On Information Structure, meaning and form: Generalizing across languages. 365–403. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hooper, Joan and Sandra Thompson. 1973. On the applicability of root transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 4.465–497. 17
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 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 170 and 171:
degree expression out of a seemingl
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?