Intervention effects in alternative questions

Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics

Volumn 9, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 165-208

  Beck, Sigrid ^a   Kim, Shin Sook ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TÜBINGEN   (Germany)

^b GOETHE UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Alternative questions; Alternative semantics; Covert movement; Disjunction; Intervention effects

Indexed keywords

EID: 33846528590     PISSN: 13834924     EISSN: 15728552     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10828-006-9005-2     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Aloni, M. (2003). Free choice in modal contexts. In M. Weisgerber (Ed.), Proceedings of Sinn & Bedeutung (Vol. 7, pp. 25-37). available at: http://ling.uni-konstanz.de/pages/conferences/sub7/.
2. Bartels, C. (1999). The intonation of English statements and questions, New York: Garland Publishing.
3. Beck, S. (1996). Wh-constructions and transparent logical form. PhD dissertation, Universität Tübingen, available at: http://www2.sfs.nphil.uni-tuebingen.de/Alumni/Dissertationen/beck.pdf.
4. Beck, S. (2006). Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation, Natural Language Semantics, 14, 1-56.
5. Beck, S., & Kim, S.-S. (1997). On Wh- and operator scope in Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 6, 339-384.
6. Groenendijk, J., & Stokhof M. (1984). Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. University of Amsterdam: Academisch Proefschrift.
7. Guerzoni, E. (to appear). Intervention effects on npis and feature movement: Towards a unified account of intervention, ms., MIT, to appear in Natural Language Semantics.
8. Gullì, A. (2003). Phrasal reduplication in syntax, PhD dissertation, CUNY Graduate Center.
9. Honcoop, M. (1998). Dynamic excursions on weak islands. PhD dissertation, University of Leiden.
10. Hamblin, C. L. (1973). Questions in Montague English, Foundations of Language, 10, 41-53.
11. Han, C.-H. (1999). The structure and interpretation of imperatives: Mood and force in universal grammar. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
12. Han, C.-H. & Romero, M. (2001). Negation, focus and alternative questions. In Proceedings of the 20th West Coast conference on formal linguistics, (pp. 262-275).
13. Han, C.-H., & Romero, M. (2004a). Disjunction, focus and scope, Linguistic Inquiry, 35, 179-217.
14. Han, C.-H., & Romero, M. (2004b). The syntax of whether/Q...or questions: Ellipsis combined with movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 22, 527-564.
15. Heim, I. (1987). Where does the definiteness restriction apply? Evidence from the definiteness of variables. In E. Reuland, & A. G. B. ter Meulen (Eds.), The representation of (In)definiteness, (pp. 21-42). Cambridge: MIT Press.
16. Hendriks, P. (2003). "Either" as a focus particle, ms., University of Groningen.
17. Herburger, E. (1993). Focus and the LF of NP quantification. Proceedings of SALT, 3, 77-96.
18. Huang, C.-T. J. (1982). Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. PhD dissertation, MIT.
19. Karttunen, L. (1977). Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1, 3-44.
20. Kim, S.-S. (2002). Focus matters: Two types of intervention effect. Paper presented at WCCFL 21, UC Santa Cruz.
21. Kratzer, A., & Shimoyama, J. (2002). Indeterminate pronouns: The view from Japanese. Available at http://semanticsarchive.net
22. Krifka, M. (1990). Four thousand ships passed through the lock: Object-induced measure functions on events. Linguistics and Philosophy, 13, 487-520.
23. Larson, R. K. (1985). On the syntax of disjunction scope. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 3, 217-264.
24. Lipták, A.: (2001). On the syntax of wh-items in Hungarian. PhD dissertation, University of Leiden.
25. Lutz, U. Müller, G. & von Stechow, A. (Eds.): (2000). Wh-scope marking. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
26. May, R. (1985). Logical form: Its structure and derivation. Cambridge: MIT Press.
27. Pesetsky, D. (2000). Phrasal movement and its kin, Cambridge: MIT Press.
28. Reinhart, T. (1998). Wh-in-situ in the framework of the Minimalilst program. Natural Language Semantics, 6, 29-56.
29. Rizzi, L. (1990). Relativized minimality. Cambridge: MIT Press.
30. Rizzi, L. (2001). Relativized minimality effects. In M. Baltin, & C. Collins (Eds.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory. (pp. 89-110). Oxford: Blackwell.
31. Rodman, R. (1976). Scope phenomena, "movement transformations", and relative clauses. In B. Partee (Ed.), Montague grammar.(pp. 165-176). New York: Academic Press.
32. Romero, M. & Han, C.-H. (2003). Focus, ellipsis and the semantics of alternative questions. In C. Beyssade, O. Bonami, P. C. Hofherr,& F. Corblin (Eds.), Empirical issues in formal syntax and semantics (Vol. 4, pp. 291-307). Paris: Presses Universitaires de Paris-Sorbonne.
33. Rooth, M. (1985). Association with focus. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
34. Rooth, M. (1992). A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics, 1, 75-116.
35. Rooth, M. (1996). Focus, In S. Lappin (Ed.), The handbook of contemporary semantic theory, (pp. 272-297). Oxford: Blackwell.
36. Sauerland, U., & Heck, F. (2003). LF intervention effects in Pied-Piping. In M. Kadowaki & S. Kawahara (Eds.), Proceedings of NELS (Vol. 33, pp. 347-366). University of Massachusetts, Amherst: GLSA.
37. Schwarz, B. (1993). Gewisse Fragesätze und gewisse Verben, die sie einbetten. Ms., Universität Tübingen.
38. Schwarz, B. (1999). On the Syntax of either...or, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 17, 339-370.
39. Shimoyama, J. (2001). Wh-constructions in Japanese. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
40. Simons, M. (2004). Dividing things up: The semantics of or and the modal/or interaction. Paper presented at NELS 35, University of Connecticut.
41. von Stechow, A. (1991). Focusing and backgrounding operators. In W. Abraham (ed.), Discourse particles. (pp. 37-84). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
42. Zimmermann, T. E. (2000). Free choice disjunction and epistemic possibility, Natural Language Semantics 8, 255-290.