Indirect scope marking again: A case for generalized question formation

Natural Language and Linguistic Theory

Volumn 25, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 103-155

  Lipták, Anikó ^a   Zimmermann, Malte ^b  

^a LEIDEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b HUMBOLDT UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Hungarian; Indirect dependency; Noun associate clauses; Question formation; Relative clauses; Scope marking

Indexed keywords

EID: 33847684271     PISSN: 0167806X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11049-006-9008-3     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Bach, E., & Cooper, R. (1978). The NP-S analysis of relative clauses and compositional semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy, 2, 145-150.
2. Bayer, J. (1984). COMP in Bavarian syntax. The Linguistic Review, 3, 209-274.
3. Beck, S. (1996). Quantified structures as barriers for LF movement. Natural Language Semantics, 4, 1-56.
4. Beck, S. (2004). A semantic explanation for intervention effects. In C. Meier, & M. Weisgerber (Eds.), Proceedings of the conference "sub8 - Sinn und Bedeutung", Arbeitspapier Nr. 177, FB Sprachwissenschaft Universität Konstanz, pp. 25-50.
5. Bennis, H. (1986). Gaps and dummies. Dordrecht: Foris.
6. Bobaljik, J., & Thrainsson, H. (1998). Two heads aren't always better than one. Syntax, 1, 37-71.
7. Bruening, B. (2006). Differences between the Wh-Scope Marking and Wh-Copy Constructions in Passamaquoddy. Linguistic Inquiry, 37(1), 25-49.
8. Cheng, L. (2000). Moving just the feature. In U. Lutz, G. Müller, & A. V. Stechow (Eds.), Wh-Scope marking, (pp. 77-99). Amsterdam: John Benjamins
9. Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language. New York: Praeger.
10. Chomsky, N. (1991). Some notes on economy of derivation and representation. In R. Freidin (Ed.), Principles and parameters in comparative grammar (pp. 417-454). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11. Dayal, V. (1994). Scope marking as indirect Wh-dependency. Natural Language Semantics, 2, 137-170.
12. Dayal, V. (2000). Scope marking: Cross linguistic variation in indirect dependency. In U. Lutz, G. Müller, & A. V. Stechow (Eds.), Wh-scope marking (pp. 157-193). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
13. Dayal, V. (2002). Single-pair vs.multiple-pair answers: Wh in-situ and Scope. Linguistic Inquiry, 33(3), 512-520.
14. Dudás, K. (2002). A részleges wh-mozgatás lehetséges modellje /A feasible way of modelling partial wh-movement/. In M. Maleczki (Ed.), A magyar nyelv leírásának újabb módszerei 5 (New methods of describing present-day Hungarian), (pp. 109-136) SZTE, Szeged.
15. Fanselow, G., & Mahajan, A. (2000). Towards a minimalist theory of Wh-expletives, Wh-copying and successive cyclicity. In U. Lutz, G. Müller, & A. V. Stechow (Eds.), Wh-Scope marking, (pp. 195-230). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
16. Fukui, N. (1986). A theory of category projection and its applications. Ph.D. dissertation. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
17. Golden, M. (1995). Interrogative Wh-movement in Slovene and English. Acta Analytica, 14, 145-186.
18. Grimshaw, J. (1990). Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19. Groenendijk, J., & Stokhof, M. (1984). Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. Ph.D. dissertation, Universiteit van Amsterdam.
20. Hamblin, C. L. (1973). Questions in montague English. Foundations of Language, 10, 41-53.
21. Heim, I. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Ph.D. dissertation. UMass Amherst.
22. Heim, I., & Kratzer, A. (1998). Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
23. Herburger, E. (1994). A semantic difference between full and partial Wh-movement in German. Paper presented at SLA 1994, Boston.
24. Hiemstra, I. (1986). Some aspects of Wh-questions in Frisian. North-Western European Language Evolution, 8, 97-110.
25. Höhle, T. (2000). The w...w construction: appositive or scope indicating?. In U. Lutz, G. Müller, & A. V. Stechow (Eds.), Wh-scope marking (pp. 249-270). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
26. Hoekstra, E., & Zwart, J.-W. (1994). De struktuur van de CP /The structure of CP/. Spectator, 23(3), 191-212.
27. Hoekstra, J. (1993). The split CP hypothesis and the Frisian complementizer system, ms., Fach Friesische Philologie, University of Kiel.
28. Horvath, J. (1995). Partial Wh-Movement and the Wh "scope-markers". In I. Kenesei (Ed.), Approaches to Hungarian, Vol. 5 (pp. 69-124). Szeged: JATE Press
29. Horvath, J. (1997). The status of "wh-expletives" and the partial movement construction in Hungarian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 15, 509-572.
30. Horvath, J. (1998). Multiple WH-phrases and the WH-scope-marker strategy in Hungarian Interrogatives. Acta Lingustica Hungarica, 45, 31-60.
31. Horvath, J. (2000). On the syntax of "Wh-Scope Marker" constructions: Some comparative evidence. In U. Lutz, G. Müller, & A. V. Stechow (Eds.), Wh-scope marking (pp. 271-316). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
32. Huang, C. T. J. (1982). Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT.
33. Karttunen, L. (1977). Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1, 3-44.
34. Keenan, E. (1985). Relative clauses. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, Vol II (pp. 141-170). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
35. Kenesei, I. (1994). Subordinate clauses. In F. Kiefer, & K. É.Kiss (Eds.), The syntactic structure of Hungarian, (pp. 275-354). San Diego: Academic Press.
36. Kuroda, S.-Y. (1972). The categorical and the thetic judgement: Evidence from Japanese syntax. Foundations of Language, 9, 153-185.
37. É. Kiss, K. (1987). Configurationality in Hungarian. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
38. Lahiri, U. (2002). On the proper treatment of "expletive wh" in Hindi. Lingua, 112, 509-572.
39. Lipták, A. (2001). On the syntax of wh-items in Hungarian. LOT dissertation series Vol. 45, Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics.
40. Lipták, A. (2004a). Scope marking in Hungarian. In A. Breitbarth, & H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), Triggers, Studies in Generative Grammar 75 (pp. 259-292). Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New York.
41. Lipták, A. (2004b). Adjunct scope marking: New arguments for Dayals approach. In K. Moulton, & M. Wolf (Eds.), Proceedings of NELS 34 (pp. 405-423). Amherst, MA: GLSA.
42. Mahajan, A. (1990). The A/A-bar distinction and movement theory, Ph.D. dissertation. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
43. Marácz, L. (1990). Asymmetries in Hungarian, Ph.D. dissertation. University of Groningen.
44. Marvin, T. (1999). Multiple Wh-movement in relation to CP-and IP-absorption, ms., MIT.
45. McDaniel, D. (1989). Partial and multiple Wh-movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 7, 565-604.
46. Merchant, J. (2004). Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy, 27(6) 661-738.
47. Moltmann, F. (1997). Intensional verbs and quantifiers. Natural Language Semantics, 5, 1-52.
48. Moro, A. (1997). The raising of predicates. Predicative noun phrases and the theory of clause structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
49. Müller, G. (1995). A-bar syntax. The study of movement types. New York: Mouton.
50. Pafel, J. (2000). Absolute and relative. On scope in German Wh-sentences, was-... w-Constructions included. In U. Lutz, G. Müller, & A. V. Stechow (Eds.), Wh-scope marking (pp. 333-358). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
51. Partee, B. (1975). Montague grammar and transformational grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 6, 203-300.
52. Reis, M. (1992). The Category of invariant alles in Wh-clauses: On syntactic quantifiers vs. quantifying particles in German. In R. Tracy (Ed.), Who climbs the grammar tree (pp. 465-492). Tübingen: Niemeyer.
53. Reis, M. (2000). On the parenthetical features of German was...w constructions and how to account for them. In U. Lutz, G. Müller, & A. V. Stechow (Eds.), Wh-scope marking (pp. 359-407). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
54. Riemsdijk, H. van. (1983). Correspondence effects and the empty category principle. In Y. Otsu, et al. (Eds.), Studies in generative grammar and language acquisition (pp. 5-16). Tokyo: ICU.
55. Rosenbaum, P. (1967). The grammar of English predicate complement constructions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
56. Stechow, A. von, & Zimmermann, T. E. (1984). Term answers and contextual change. Linguistics, 22, 3-40.
57. Stepanov, A. (2000). Wh-scope marking in Slavic. Studia Linguistica, 54, 1-40.
58. Sternefeld, W. (2001). Partial movement constructions, Pied Piping, and higher order choice functions. In C. Féry, & W. Sternefeld (Eds.), Audiatur Vox Sapientiae. A Festschrift for Arnim von Stechow (pp. 473-486). Berlin: Akademieverlag.
59. Sternefeld, W. (2002). Wh-expletives and partial Wh-movement: Two non-existing concepts? In W. Abraham, & C. J.-W. Zwart (Eds.), Issues in Formal German(ic) Typology (pp. 285-305). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
60. Stowell, T. (1981). Origins of phrase structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
61. Surányi, B. (2003). Multiple operator movements in Hungarian, LOT dissertation series. Vol. 72, Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics.
62. Szabolcsi, A. (1994). The noun phrase. In F. Kiefer and K. É.Kiss (Eds.), The syntactic structure of Hungarian (pp. 179-274). San Diego: Academic Press.
63. Torrego, E., & Uriagereka, J. (1989). Indicative dependence, ms., University of Massachusetts at Amherst & University of Maryland.
64. Varga, L. (2002). Intonation and Stress. Evidence from Hungarian. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
65. de Vries, M. (2002). The Syntax of relativization, LOT dissertation series. Vol. 53, Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics.
66. Zimmermann, T. E. (2005). Monotonicity in Opaque Verbs, ms., Goethe University, Frankfurt/Main.