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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk. Vol. 1, 142–172. Malden: Blackwell Publishing. Harley, Heidi. 2008. On the causative construction. Oxford handbook of Japanese linguistics, ed. by Shigeru Miyagawa and Mamoru Saito, 20–53. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kirpo, Lidija, and Maxim Kudrinskij. 2011. Tatar derivational morphology database. Technical report 12-04. Moscow State University. Koontz-Garboden, Andrew. 2009. Anticausativization. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 27.77– 138. Koontz-Garboden, Andrew, and John Beavers. 2012. Manner and Result in the roots of verbal meaning. Linguistic Inquiry 43.331–369. Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. Phrase structure and the lexicon, ed. by Johan Rooryck and Laurie A. Zaring, 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Kratzer, Angelika. 2005. Building resultatives. Event arguments in syntax, semantics, and discourse, ed. by Claudia Maienborn and Angelika Wöllstein-Leisen, 177–212. Tubingen: Niemeyer. Kulikov, Leonid. 2001. Causatives. Language typology and language universals: an international handbook, ed. by Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher; and Wolfgang Raible. Vol. 2, 886–898. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Lakoff, George. 1965. On the nature of syntactic irregularity. PhD dissertation, Indiana University. Levin, Beth, and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 2010. Lexicalized meaning and Manner/Result complementarity. Ms., Stanford University and The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Lyutikova, Ekaterina, and Sergei Tatevosov. 2010. Causativization and event structure. Ms., Moscow State University. Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4.201–225. McCawley, James D. 1972. Syntactic and logical arguments for semantic structures. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Linguistics Club Edition. Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2012. Blocking and causatives: Unexpected competition across derivations. Case, argument structure, and word order, Chapter 8, 202–223. Routledge. Pylkkänen, Liina. 2002. Introducing arguments. PhD dissertation, MIT. Ramchand, Gillian. 2008. Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first phase syntax. Cambridge University Press. Rapp, Irene, and Arnim von Stechow. 1999. Fast ‘almost’ and the visibility parameter for functional adverbs. Journal of Semantics 16.149–204. Rappaport Hovav, Malka, and Beth Levin. 1998. Building verb meanings. The projection of arguments: lexical and compositional factors, ed. by Miriam Butt and Wilhelm Geuder, 97–134. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Rothstein, Susanne. 2004. Structuring events: A study in the semantics of lexical aspect. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Saksena, Anuradha. 1982. Contact in causation. Language 58.820–831. Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1973. Semantics of Japanese causatives. Foundations of Language 9.327–373. Shibatani, Masayoshi (ed.) 2002. The grammar of causation and interpersonal manipulation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. Starke, Michal. 2009. Nanosyntax: A short primer to a new approach to language. Nordlyd 36-1.1–6. Taraldsen, Knut Tarald. 2009. Lexicalizing number and gender in Lunigiana. Nordlyd 36-1.113–127. Tatevosov, Sergei, and Lidija Kirpo. 2012. Deriving verb classes in Tatat. Ms., Moscow State University. Travis, Lisa DeMena. 2010. Inner aspect: The articulation of VP. Dordrecht: Springer. von Stechow, Arnim. 1996. The different readings of wieder ‘again’: A structural account. Journal of Semantics 13.87–138. Yang, In-Seok. 1976. Semantics of Korean causation. Foundations of Language 14.55–87. Zubizarreta, Maria L., and Eunjeong Oh. 2007. On the syntactic composition of manner and motion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 224
Negation-resistant polarity items Andreea Cristina Nicolae ∗ Harvard University 1. Introduction The interaction between polarity-sensitive indefinites (henceforth PSIs) and negation can tell us a lot about the underlying semantics of these indefinites. We generally see a two-way split in the distribution of such indefinites. On one hand, we have items such as ever and in weeks that can only survive if embedded in a negative environment, as in (1), while on the other, we have indefinites such as some girl and someone that resist the scope of negation, as in (2). (1) a. I don’t think Mary ever visited me at school. b. She hasn’t seen that guy around the department in weeks. (2) a. *John didn’t talk to some girl. b. *I didn’t eat something today. In this paper we focus on the second type of PSIs, which can, more generally, be labeled as negation-resistant indefinites. The main property of these items is that they appear to be in complementary distribution with negative polarity items (henceforth NPIs) of the type in (1); unlike NPIs which can only receive the interpretation of a narrow scope indefinite with respect to negation, some girl and someone cannot be interpreted with narrow scope. Despite this parallel, these items have been offered diverging analyses in the literature based on the fact that they behave differently in non-negative environments. Items such as some girl have been argued to be existential free choice items, or epistemic indefinites (see e.g. Kratzer and Shimoyama 2002, Alonso-Ovalle and Menéndez-Benito 2010, Fălăuş 2010, Chierchia 2011) that give rise to an ignorance inference, while those of the someone type are labeled positive polarity items, henceforth PPIs (Szabolcsi 2004, Homer 2011b). However, as of yet there has been no attempt to offer an analysis of these two types of items framed within one and the same system, a system that would be able to account for the distribution of all types of PSIs, including NPIs. In other words, those analyses that tackle the distribution of epistemic indefinites illustrate how NPIs ought to be couched within the respective frameworks without discussing PPIs, while those dealing with PPIs integrate NPIs but ignore the epistemic indefinites. The problem we are faced with at this stage in the development of a complete understanding of the polarity system at large is that these two sets of analyses do not converge on an account of NPIs, thus making the search ∗ This work has benefited greatly from conversations with Gennaro Chierchia, Amy Rose Deal and Anamaria Fălăuş. I would also like to thank Hedde Zeijlstra, an anonymous reviewer and Christopher Piñón for insightful comments during the later versions of this paper. © 2012 Andreea Cristina Nicolae Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 9, ed. Christopher Piñón, pp. 225–242 EISS 9 http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss9/
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 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: ⏟ AA ⏟ (61) [ v P … v TR [ Ak
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?