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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Horvath, Julia. 2010. “Discourse-features”, syntactic displacement, and the status of contrast. Lingua 120.1346–1369. Krifka, Manfred. 2001. For a structured meaning account of questions and answers. In Caroline. Fery & Wolfgang Sternefeld, Audiatur Vox Sapientiae: A festschrift for Arnim von Stechow. Akademie Verlag. 287–319. Krifka, Manfred. 2006. Association with focus phrases. In Valeria Molnar & Susanne Winkler, (eds.) The architecture of focus. 105–136. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Krifka, Manfred. 2007. Basic notions of information structure. In Caroline Féry, Gilbert Fanselow, and Manfred Krifka (eds.), Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure 6. Krifka, Manfred 2011. Embedding speech acts. Online: http://philpapers.org/. Ladd, Robert D. 1996. Intonational phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Meinunger, André. 2004. Verb position, verbal mood and the anchoring (potential) of sentences. In Horst Lohnstein and Susanne Trissler (eds.), The syntax and semantics of the left periphery. 313– 41. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Merchant, Jason 2001. The syntax of silence. New York: Oxford University Press. Miyagawa, S. 2011. Agreements that occur mainly in the main clause. Online: http://web.mit.edu/miyagawa/www/manuscripts.html. Neeleman, Ad; Elena Titov; Hans van de Koot; and Reiko Vermeulen. 2007. A syntactic typology of topic, focus and contrast. Online: lingBuzz/000562. Neeleman, Ad, and Hans van de Koot 2008. Dutch scrambling and the nature of discourse templates. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 11.137–189. Nespor, Marina, and Irene Vogel. 1986. Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris. Rizzi, Luigi 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Liliane Haegeman (ed.), Elements of grammar. 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1.75–116. Samek-Lodovici, Vieri. 2006. When Right Dislocation meets the Left-Periphery. A unified analysis of Italian non-final focus. Lingua 116.836–873. Schwarzschild, Roger. 1999. Givenness, Avoid F, and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Semantics 7.141–177. Stalnaker, Robert. 1978. Assertion. In Peter Cole (ed.), Syntax and semantics 9: Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press. 315–332. Swerts, Mark; Emiel Krahmer; and Cinzia Avesani. 2002. Prosodic marking of information status in Dutch and Italian: a comparative analysis. Journal of Phonetics 30.629–654. Szendrői, Kriszta. 2002. Stress-focus correspondence in Italian. In Claire Beyssade, Reineke Bok- Bennema, Frank Drijkoningen, and Paola Monachesi (eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 2000: Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’ 2000. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1995. Phonological phrases: Their relation to syntax, focus and prominence. Cambridge MA: Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Tomioka, Satoshi. 2010. Contrastive topics operate on speech acts. In Malte Zimmermann and Caroline Féry (eds.) Information Structure: Theoretical, typological and experimental perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.115–138. Vallduví, Enric. 1992. The informational component. New York: Garland. van Leusen, Noor. 2004. Incompatibility in context: A diagnosis of correction. Journal of Semantics 21.415–442. 18
Wh-coordination in Hungarian and Romanian multiple questions Gabriela Bîlbîie † and Anna Gazdik †‡∗ † LLF−Université Paris Diderot - Paris 7, ‡ Research Institute for Linguistics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences 1. Introduction According to one definition, coordination is a syntactic operation that usually includes the presence of a conjunction and is based on some repetitive mechanism (Sag et al. 1985). However, the exact nature of this repetitive mechanism has not always been clear. Nowadays, it is generally accepted that the conjuncts must be categorially/functionally similar and they must share a superordinate semantic concept they all can be seen as instances of. The assumption that categorial identity is not always realized is easy to show (based on Sag et al. 1985): (1) a. Pat is [a Republican] NP and [proud of it] AP . b. Pat is [either asleep] AP or [at the office] PP . c. That was [a rude remark] NP and [in very bad taste] PP . As these examples illustrate, the syntactic parallelism is weak concerning category and morphosyntactic features like gender, number, mood, etc. However, syntactic parallelism is strong when it comes to the syntactic function of the conjuncts: in the above examples, although the conjuncts are not of the same category, they share the same function (they are all predicative complements of the copula). These observations can be captured by the so-called Wasow’s Generalization: for a coordination to be well-formed, each conjunct must independently meet the constraints imposed by the shared material. Another constraint concerning coordination constructions applies at the semantic level: the conjuncts must also share the same semantic role. In the following example, although each conjunct would form a grammatical sentence on its own (since the verb is optionally transitive), the sentence is ungrammatical, as they have different semantic roles: (2) *John eats [an apple and at midnight]. However, there are some specific structures that apparently violate the strong syntactic and semantic parallelism required in coordination (see examples in Chaves and Paperno 2007). One of these structures is the case of wh-phrases, 1 illustrated in (3) for two typologically unrelated ∗ We would like to thank Anne Abeillé, Olivier Bonami, Jean-Marie Marandin, François Mouret, and the reviewers of EISS 9 for their valuable comments on our previous work on this topic and on the paper itself. Needless to say, only we are to blame for any errors, misconceptions, and unclarities. 1 For the sake of simplicity, we illustrate this phenomenon with the help of binary examples (in which two conjuncts are coordinated). The coordination of more than two conjuncts works the same way. Throughout the paper, we only talk about ‘bare’ wh-phrases, but the proposed generalizations seem to hold for complex wh-phrases as well. © 2012 Gabriela Bîlbîie and Anna Gazdik Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 9, ed. Christopher Piñón, pp. 19–36 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 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

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

Delete template?

Save as template?