Abstract Contrary to the conventional three-way distinction of questions: polar questions, disjunctive questions, and wh-questions, we argue for a more revealing two-way distinction of polar versus constituent questions, the latter with two subtypes: disjunctive and wh-questions. Following Bhatt, Rajesh & Veneeta Dayal. 2020. Polar question particles: Hindi-Urdu kya. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 38. 1115–1144 proposal that polar questions denote singleton sets of propositions and the standard view that disjunctive and wh-questions denote sets with multiple propositions, we further characterize this dichotomy pragmatically as confirmation-seeking (CS) and information-seeking (IS), i.e., polar questions seek confirmation of the proposition put forth, while constituent questions seek information specifically targeted by the interrogative constituent. This dichotomy is formally detected in Mandarin Chinese via the question particle ma versus ne, dichotomy of fragment questions, adverb nandao ‘don’t tell me’ versus daodi ‘after all’, respective (in)ability to serve as indirect questions, and an intervention effect on constituent questions. We then discuss the typological implications of this two-way distinction and demonstrate that the Changsha dialect of Xiang, another Sinitic language, has no CS polar questions as the alleged polar questions are all disjunctive questions. This fact suggests that, while there are two major types of questions cross-linguistically, CS polar questions are not universal.
{"title":"On a dichotomy of question types: the case of Mandarin Chinese and Changsha Xiang","authors":"One-Soon Her, Dewei Che, Adams Bodomo","doi":"10.1515/tlr-2022-2087","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2022-2087","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Contrary to the conventional three-way distinction of questions: polar questions, disjunctive questions, and wh-questions, we argue for a more revealing two-way distinction of polar versus constituent questions, the latter with two subtypes: disjunctive and wh-questions. Following Bhatt, Rajesh & Veneeta Dayal. 2020. Polar question particles: Hindi-Urdu kya. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 38. 1115–1144 proposal that polar questions denote singleton sets of propositions and the standard view that disjunctive and wh-questions denote sets with multiple propositions, we further characterize this dichotomy pragmatically as confirmation-seeking (CS) and information-seeking (IS), i.e., polar questions seek confirmation of the proposition put forth, while constituent questions seek information specifically targeted by the interrogative constituent. This dichotomy is formally detected in Mandarin Chinese via the question particle ma versus ne, dichotomy of fragment questions, adverb nandao ‘don’t tell me’ versus daodi ‘after all’, respective (in)ability to serve as indirect questions, and an intervention effect on constituent questions. We then discuss the typological implications of this two-way distinction and demonstrate that the Changsha dialect of Xiang, another Sinitic language, has no CS polar questions as the alleged polar questions are all disjunctive questions. This fact suggests that, while there are two major types of questions cross-linguistically, CS polar questions are not universal.","PeriodicalId":46358,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Review","volume":"39 1","pages":"257 - 291"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45182572","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Marwan Jarrah, Rasheed S. Al-Jarrah, Ekab Al-Shawashreh
Abstract This research article offers empirical evidence from Standard Arabic (SA) that an existing structural case assigned on an element by one head can be overridden by a new structural case assigned by a different head as long as the element (or one of its copies) has not become part of any previous transfer domain defined by the Phase Impenetrability Condition (PIC) (see Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Roger Martin, David Michaels & Juan Uriagereka (eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press). Our main evidence comes from the patterns of case assignment of the overt complementizer ʔinna in SA. ʔinna can only assign case to elements that otherwise bear default case, including a topical object or a topical subject as well as elements that are assigned case by T0 such as a contrastively focused subject. On the other hand, ʔinna never assigns case to a contrastively focused object (that is located in CP) which is argued to be base generated in its thematic position within the transfer domain of v*P. These facts are taken together as evidence that a structural case assigned to elements within a phase is temporary (as it can be overridden) until the transfer takes place. We attribute this to the workings of a transfer principle labelled as The Case-Chain Uniformity Principle (CCUP) that demands that a non-trivial chain (i.e., a discontinuous entity) be only assigned one case value in the interface.
{"title":"No case tampering once transfer domain is formed!","authors":"Marwan Jarrah, Rasheed S. Al-Jarrah, Ekab Al-Shawashreh","doi":"10.1515/tlr-2022-2085","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2022-2085","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This research article offers empirical evidence from Standard Arabic (SA) that an existing structural case assigned on an element by one head can be overridden by a new structural case assigned by a different head as long as the element (or one of its copies) has not become part of any previous transfer domain defined by the Phase Impenetrability Condition (PIC) (see Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Roger Martin, David Michaels & Juan Uriagereka (eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press). Our main evidence comes from the patterns of case assignment of the overt complementizer ʔinna in SA. ʔinna can only assign case to elements that otherwise bear default case, including a topical object or a topical subject as well as elements that are assigned case by T0 such as a contrastively focused subject. On the other hand, ʔinna never assigns case to a contrastively focused object (that is located in CP) which is argued to be base generated in its thematic position within the transfer domain of v*P. These facts are taken together as evidence that a structural case assigned to elements within a phase is temporary (as it can be overridden) until the transfer takes place. We attribute this to the workings of a transfer principle labelled as The Case-Chain Uniformity Principle (CCUP) that demands that a non-trivial chain (i.e., a discontinuous entity) be only assigned one case value in the interface.","PeriodicalId":46358,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Review","volume":"39 1","pages":"203 - 232"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44752510","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract An outstanding question in current studies concerns the status of Romance SE that does not obviously mark reflexivity or anticausativity. This paper signals the presence of such constructions in Old and Modern Romanian, where SE occurs with unergative verbs and qualifies as pleonastic according to traditional grammars (i.e., it makes no difference for the truth conditions or for the argument structure). The main argument is that such constructions are actually instances of differential subject marking (DSM) in Romanian, and that the semantic triggers and the underlying configuration resemble those that occur with differential object marking (DOM) in this language. In terms of theoretical contribution, this analysis (i) widens the cross-linguistic inventory of DSM patterns, by adding Clitic Doubling; (ii) confirms the predictions of recent studies that there could be similarity rather than opposition between DOM and DSM contexts; (iii) shows the possibility of re-allocating the reflexive pronoun SE to other configurations besides (an instance of) verb reflexivization.
{"title":"Differential subject marking through SE","authors":"Virginia Hill, M. Irimia","doi":"10.1515/tlr-2021-2081","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2021-2081","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract An outstanding question in current studies concerns the status of Romance SE that does not obviously mark reflexivity or anticausativity. This paper signals the presence of such constructions in Old and Modern Romanian, where SE occurs with unergative verbs and qualifies as pleonastic according to traditional grammars (i.e., it makes no difference for the truth conditions or for the argument structure). The main argument is that such constructions are actually instances of differential subject marking (DSM) in Romanian, and that the semantic triggers and the underlying configuration resemble those that occur with differential object marking (DOM) in this language. In terms of theoretical contribution, this analysis (i) widens the cross-linguistic inventory of DSM patterns, by adding Clitic Doubling; (ii) confirms the predictions of recent studies that there could be similarity rather than opposition between DOM and DSM contexts; (iii) shows the possibility of re-allocating the reflexive pronoun SE to other configurations besides (an instance of) verb reflexivization.","PeriodicalId":46358,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Review","volume":"39 1","pages":"37 - 83"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45581252","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract A parasitic gap construction typically occurs when an otherwise illicit gap in an island is ameliorated by a gap elsewhere in the sentence. In this paper, we consider the relationship between the unacceptability of extraction from subject islands (ExtrSubj) and the amelioration associated with parasitic gaps. We argue that there is no parasitic gap mechanism per se that has the effect of making extraction from an island grammatical. Rather, the link between the two is a matter of processing complexity. Our central claim is that in ExtrSubj, the presence of a distinct referring argument in the predicate contributes processing complexity. This referring argument is the ‘Uninvited Guest’. If an instance of ExtrSubj is of reduced acceptability, inclusion of the Uninvited Guest is likely to make it fully unacceptable, or ‘ungrammatical’ in conventional terms. On the other hand, linking of the argument position to the extracted A′ constituent – a ‘parasitic gap’ configuration – does not contribute additional processing complexity, thus giving rise to the appearance of amelioration.
{"title":"Parasitic gaps aren’t parasitic, or, the case of the Uninvited Guest","authors":"P. Culicover, S. Winkler","doi":"10.1515/tlr-2021-2080","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2021-2080","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract A parasitic gap construction typically occurs when an otherwise illicit gap in an island is ameliorated by a gap elsewhere in the sentence. In this paper, we consider the relationship between the unacceptability of extraction from subject islands (ExtrSubj) and the amelioration associated with parasitic gaps. We argue that there is no parasitic gap mechanism per se that has the effect of making extraction from an island grammatical. Rather, the link between the two is a matter of processing complexity. Our central claim is that in ExtrSubj, the presence of a distinct referring argument in the predicate contributes processing complexity. This referring argument is the ‘Uninvited Guest’. If an instance of ExtrSubj is of reduced acceptability, inclusion of the Uninvited Guest is likely to make it fully unacceptable, or ‘ungrammatical’ in conventional terms. On the other hand, linking of the argument position to the extracted A′ constituent – a ‘parasitic gap’ configuration – does not contribute additional processing complexity, thus giving rise to the appearance of amelioration.","PeriodicalId":46358,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Review","volume":"39 1","pages":"1 - 35"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-01-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44745556","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This paper addresses aspectual se in Spanish. Building on the previous analyses that have been proposed in the literature to account for constructions with aspectual se that mainly focus on the syntax of these (see, e.g., MacDonald, Jonathan E. 2017. Spanish aspectual se as an indirect object reflexive: The import of atelicity, bare nouns, and leísta PCC repairs. Probus. International Journal of Romance Linguistics 29(1). 73–118), this paper provides a semantic account that makes explicit (i) why dynamic predicates must be telic in the presence of se, and (ii) why the very same se can appear with a limited number of stative predicates, which are atelic. The account is implemented in the Figure/Path Relation model in Beavers, John. 2011. On affectedness. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29(2). 335–370, Figure/Path Relation model. I propose a maximization strategy that captures that dynamic predicates in constructions with se are always telic by indicating the conditions under which the theme has a fixed quantity and the scale/path that may be associated with the verb is bounded. This maximization strategy is then compared to and distinguished from the event maximization strategies proposed for Slavic languages (Filip, Hana. 2008. Events and maximalization: The case of telicity and perfectivity. In Susan Rothstein (ed.), Theoretical and crosslinguistic approaches to the semantics of aspect, 217–256. Amsterdam: John Benjamins) and Hungarian (Kardos, Éva. 2016. Telicity marking in Hungarian. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 1(1). 1–37), and to the scale/path maximization strategy proposed for Southern Aymara (Martínez Vera, Gabriel. 2021a. Degree achievements and degree morphemes in competition in Southern Aymara. Linguistics and Philosophy 44. 695–735).
{"title":"Revisiting aspectual se in Spanish: telicity, statives, and maximization","authors":"Gabriel Martínez Vera","doi":"10.1515/tlr-2021-2084","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2021-2084","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper addresses aspectual se in Spanish. Building on the previous analyses that have been proposed in the literature to account for constructions with aspectual se that mainly focus on the syntax of these (see, e.g., MacDonald, Jonathan E. 2017. Spanish aspectual se as an indirect object reflexive: The import of atelicity, bare nouns, and leísta PCC repairs. Probus. International Journal of Romance Linguistics 29(1). 73–118), this paper provides a semantic account that makes explicit (i) why dynamic predicates must be telic in the presence of se, and (ii) why the very same se can appear with a limited number of stative predicates, which are atelic. The account is implemented in the Figure/Path Relation model in Beavers, John. 2011. On affectedness. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29(2). 335–370, Figure/Path Relation model. I propose a maximization strategy that captures that dynamic predicates in constructions with se are always telic by indicating the conditions under which the theme has a fixed quantity and the scale/path that may be associated with the verb is bounded. This maximization strategy is then compared to and distinguished from the event maximization strategies proposed for Slavic languages (Filip, Hana. 2008. Events and maximalization: The case of telicity and perfectivity. In Susan Rothstein (ed.), Theoretical and crosslinguistic approaches to the semantics of aspect, 217–256. Amsterdam: John Benjamins) and Hungarian (Kardos, Éva. 2016. Telicity marking in Hungarian. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 1(1). 1–37), and to the scale/path maximization strategy proposed for Southern Aymara (Martínez Vera, Gabriel. 2021a. Degree achievements and degree morphemes in competition in Southern Aymara. Linguistics and Philosophy 44. 695–735).","PeriodicalId":46358,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Review","volume":"39 1","pages":"159 - 202"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-01-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48383372","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract One of the most significant results in syntax has been a deep empirical and, to some degree, theoretical understanding of the argument/adjunct distinction, which underlies a range of superficially disparate phenomena. Therefore, any phenomenon that seems to challenge the argument/adjunct distinction merits careful examination. This paper investigates just such a phenomenon: proleptic PPs. Previous claims about the argument/adjunct status of proleptic PPs are contradictory and mostly unsubstantiated. The paper subjects proleptic PPs to argument/adjunct diagnostics and shows that they unambiguously pattern as arguments: they cannot iterate, survive do so–replacement, or be stranded under vP-pseudoclefting; reconstruct for Condition C under vP-preposing; and are L-selected. They also pattern as arguments on a novel argument/adjunct diagnostic developed here, selectional switch: if adding XP to a structure changes the selectional interactions between a head Y and some ZP ≠ XP, then XP is an argument. Finally, the paper considers counterarguments to the view it defends, showing that they are unsuccessful or irrelevant. Thus, even XPs whose argument/adjunct status initially seems murky can turn out on closer scrutiny to pattern unambiguously as one or the other, supporting the traditional but not uncontested view that the argument/adjunct distinction runs deep, and suggesting that it may be categorical.
{"title":"Proleptic PPs are arguments: consequences for the argument/adjunct distinction and for selectional switch","authors":"Erik Zyman","doi":"10.1515/tlr-2021-2083","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2021-2083","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract One of the most significant results in syntax has been a deep empirical and, to some degree, theoretical understanding of the argument/adjunct distinction, which underlies a range of superficially disparate phenomena. Therefore, any phenomenon that seems to challenge the argument/adjunct distinction merits careful examination. This paper investigates just such a phenomenon: proleptic PPs. Previous claims about the argument/adjunct status of proleptic PPs are contradictory and mostly unsubstantiated. The paper subjects proleptic PPs to argument/adjunct diagnostics and shows that they unambiguously pattern as arguments: they cannot iterate, survive do so–replacement, or be stranded under vP-pseudoclefting; reconstruct for Condition C under vP-preposing; and are L-selected. They also pattern as arguments on a novel argument/adjunct diagnostic developed here, selectional switch: if adding XP to a structure changes the selectional interactions between a head Y and some ZP ≠ XP, then XP is an argument. Finally, the paper considers counterarguments to the view it defends, showing that they are unsuccessful or irrelevant. Thus, even XPs whose argument/adjunct status initially seems murky can turn out on closer scrutiny to pattern unambiguously as one or the other, supporting the traditional but not uncontested view that the argument/adjunct distinction runs deep, and suggesting that it may be categorical.","PeriodicalId":46358,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Review","volume":"39 1","pages":"129 - 158"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42045273","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This paper proposes a Minimalist analysis of the Adjunct Condition. It shows that extraction from adverbial adjuncts is common, and it reviews and extends (Truswell, Robert. 2011. Events, phrases, and questions. Oxford: Oxford University Press analysis), which holds that extractions are grammatical when the adjunct and matrix predicates together constitute a macro-event. Syntactically, a UI feature (representing “unintegration”) on adjuncts must be active at either LF or PF; where it is active ill-formedness results. However, if a macro-event is possible, UI is inactivated at LF, allowing extraction; and though an active UI at PF normally causes ill-formedness, this is repairable by sluicing. This analysis improves on existing analyses by accounting for possible extractions, island repair by sluicing, and the basic conception of adjuncts as relatively unintegrated phrases.
{"title":"The adjunct condition and the nature of adjuncts","authors":"T. Ernst","doi":"10.1515/tlr-2021-2082","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2021-2082","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper proposes a Minimalist analysis of the Adjunct Condition. It shows that extraction from adverbial adjuncts is common, and it reviews and extends (Truswell, Robert. 2011. Events, phrases, and questions. Oxford: Oxford University Press analysis), which holds that extractions are grammatical when the adjunct and matrix predicates together constitute a macro-event. Syntactically, a UI feature (representing “unintegration”) on adjuncts must be active at either LF or PF; where it is active ill-formedness results. However, if a macro-event is possible, UI is inactivated at LF, allowing extraction; and though an active UI at PF normally causes ill-formedness, this is repairable by sluicing. This analysis improves on existing analyses by accounting for possible extractions, island repair by sluicing, and the basic conception of adjuncts as relatively unintegrated phrases.","PeriodicalId":46358,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Review","volume":"39 1","pages":"85 - 128"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47240663","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The article shows that the Coordinate Structure Constraint (CSC) can be violated in a number of languages and establishes a novel cross-linguistic generalization regarding languages that allow violations of the CSC. A phase-based deduction of this generalization is then provided under a particular contextual approach to phases. In addition, based on the cross-linguistic data regarding violations of the CSC, it is argued that the CSC should be separated into two conditions: (i) the ban on extraction of a conjunct, and (ii) the ban on extraction out of a conjunct. This means that the whole coordinate structure (ConjP) as well as individual conjuncts are islands independently of each other. The article also addresses the long-standing debate regarding where in the grammar the CSC applies, arguing that the two different conditions that result from the separation of the traditional CSC ((i) and (ii) above) are deduced from different mechanisms in the architecture of the grammar: one is a purely syntactic condition, and the other is an interface condition.
{"title":"Decomposing and deducing the Coordinate Structure Constraint","authors":"Hiromune Oda","doi":"10.1515/tlr-2021-2077","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2021-2077","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The article shows that the Coordinate Structure Constraint (CSC) can be violated in a number of languages and establishes a novel cross-linguistic generalization regarding languages that allow violations of the CSC. A phase-based deduction of this generalization is then provided under a particular contextual approach to phases. In addition, based on the cross-linguistic data regarding violations of the CSC, it is argued that the CSC should be separated into two conditions: (i) the ban on extraction of a conjunct, and (ii) the ban on extraction out of a conjunct. This means that the whole coordinate structure (ConjP) as well as individual conjuncts are islands independently of each other. The article also addresses the long-standing debate regarding where in the grammar the CSC applies, arguing that the two different conditions that result from the separation of the traditional CSC ((i) and (ii) above) are deduced from different mechanisms in the architecture of the grammar: one is a purely syntactic condition, and the other is an interface condition.","PeriodicalId":46358,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Review","volume":"38 1","pages":"605 - 644"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47254244","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract In this study we argue that the appropriateness of an answer to a why-question, potentially bearing on multiple contrast classes, is mainly influenced by the focalized argument, which identifies the relevant reference set. The focalization structure, however, interacts in a non-trivial way with the thematic structure and its accessibility, suggesting a general (independent) prominence of the direct object (DO) over the indirect one (IO). In correlation to that, we also observed that DO appears more resistant to extraction compared to IO, while it seems felicitous in a post-IO focalized low position (light NP-shifting). These contrasts are obtained by running five distinct experiments in Italian targeting various dislocation configurations: Four forced choice tasks manipulating leftward dislocation (i) clefting versus (ii) fronting versus (iii) clitic left dislocation and (iv) postverbal reordering (canonical DO IO order vs. IO DO) in ditransitive predicates. Then (v) an acceptability judgment study was administered to assess the difficulty in figuring out a licensing context coherent with the argument ordering, provided in the why-question. To minimize the interacting factors, all sentences included null subjects and a context was provided for each experimental item in the forced choice tasks, introducing the relevant contrast classes.
{"title":"Why-questions and focus in Italian","authors":"Francesco Beltrame, C. Chesi","doi":"10.1515/tlr-2021-2079","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2021-2079","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In this study we argue that the appropriateness of an answer to a why-question, potentially bearing on multiple contrast classes, is mainly influenced by the focalized argument, which identifies the relevant reference set. The focalization structure, however, interacts in a non-trivial way with the thematic structure and its accessibility, suggesting a general (independent) prominence of the direct object (DO) over the indirect one (IO). In correlation to that, we also observed that DO appears more resistant to extraction compared to IO, while it seems felicitous in a post-IO focalized low position (light NP-shifting). These contrasts are obtained by running five distinct experiments in Italian targeting various dislocation configurations: Four forced choice tasks manipulating leftward dislocation (i) clefting versus (ii) fronting versus (iii) clitic left dislocation and (iv) postverbal reordering (canonical DO IO order vs. IO DO) in ditransitive predicates. Then (v) an acceptability judgment study was administered to assess the difficulty in figuring out a licensing context coherent with the argument ordering, provided in the why-question. To minimize the interacting factors, all sentences included null subjects and a context was provided for each experimental item in the forced choice tasks, introducing the relevant contrast classes.","PeriodicalId":46358,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Review","volume":"38 1","pages":"687 - 726"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48891765","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：