Repository of University of Nova Gorica

Search the repository
A+ | A- | Help | SLO | ENG

Query: search in
search in
search in
search in
* old and bologna study programme

Options:
  Reset


1 - 3 / 3
First pagePrevious page1Next pageLast page
1.
A question of strength : on NPIs in interrogative clauses
Elena Guerzoni, Yael Sharvit, 2007, original scientific article

Abstract: We observe that the facts pertaining to the acceptability of negative polarity items (henceforth, NPIs) in interrogative environments complex than previously noted. Since Klima [Klima, E. (1964). In J. Fodor & J. Katz (Eds.), The structure of language. Prentice-Hall], it has been typically assumed that NPIs are grammatical in both matrix and embedded questions, however, on closer scrutiny it turns out that there are differences between root and embedded environments, and between question nucleus and wh-restrictor. While NPIs are always licensed in the nucleus of root questions, their acceptability in the restrictor of wh-phrases and in the nucleus of any embedded question depends on the logical properties of the linguistic environment: its strength in terms of exhaustivity [Groenendijk, J., & Stokhof, M. (1984). Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatic answers. Amserdam (NL), Post-Doctoral Dissertation. Heim, I. (1994). In R. Buchalla & A. Mittwoch (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th annual IATL conference and of the 1993 IATL workshop on discourse (pp. 128–144). Akademon, Jerusalem. Beck, S., & 16 Rullmann, H. (1999). Natural Language Semantics, 7, 249–298. Sharvit, Y (2002). Natural Language Semantics, 10, 97–123] and its monotonicity properties (in the sense of von Fintel [von Fintel, K. (1999). Journal of 19 Semantics, 16, 97-148]).
Keywords: negative polarity items, interrogative clauses
Published in RUNG: 20.02.2024; Views: 262; Downloads: 2
URL Link to file
This document has many files! More...

2.
Interrogative Slifting: More syntactic, less parenthetical
Arthur Stepanov, Penka Stateva, 2016, original scientific article

Abstract: In this article we re-assess the recent analysis of interrogative Slifting (e.g., "Who is a Martian, do you think?") proposed in Haddican et al. (2014). In this analysis, the two component clauses have an indirect syntactic relation to each other, and the semantic and pragmatic relationship between the “slift” question and the main clause is conceived around the notion of evidentiality. We advance an alternative proposal whereby interrogative Slifting can be construed more on a par with wh-scope marking questions attested in languages like German or Hindi. Placing interrogative Slifting alongside wh-scope marking, a more familiar and better-studied construction type, avoids certain empirical difficulties of the original analysis and paves a way toward a uniform treatment of its syntactic, semantic and interface properties.
Keywords: Slifting, wh-scope marking, adjunction, interrogative, parenthetical
Published in RUNG: 31.08.2016; Views: 4591; Downloads: 225
.pdf Full text (1,30 MB)

3.
On the Optionality of Wh-Fronting in a Multiple Wh-Fronting Language
Petra Mišmaš, 2015, doctoral dissertation

Abstract: This thesis explores the fact that in Slovenian multiple wh-questions not all wh-phrases have to front. This suggests that multiple wh-movement in Slovenian is optional. The majority of the existing literature on multiple wh-fronting focuses on questions in which all wh-phrases have to move to clause initial positions, I, on the other hand, focus on optionality in multiple wh-questions. I show movement in Slovenian is not avoided because of phonological, syntactic or semantic restrictions that influence other languages (cf. Bošković 2002), and that the Principle of Distinctness (Richards 2010) does not account for all cases of optional multiple wh-fronting in Slovenian. Three types of multiple wh-questions in Slovenian are determined and analyzed: (i) questions in which all wh-phrases move to clause initial positions (i.e. questions with multiple wh-fronting), (ii) questions in which one wh-phrase has to be moved to a clause initial position and the rest undergo movement to a clause internal position (multiple wh-questions with short movement), (iii) questions in which at least one wh-phrase has to be moved to a clause initial position and the rest stay in situ (multiple wh-questions with wh-in-situ). Crucially, in all three types at least one wh-phrase has to move to a clause initial position for a question to receive a true question reading. I assume the Cartographic approach and propose an account of multiple wh-fronting in Slovenian in which one wh-phrase has to move to an Interrogative Projection (the clause initial position) in the Left Periphery while the remaining wh-phrases move to Wh-Projections in the Left Periphery, questions in (i), or the Low Periphery, questions in (ii). I propose that wh-phrases with a wh-feature undergo wh-movement, which means that wh-movement is in fact obligatory in Slovenian. In questions of type (iii), wh-phrases that do not undergo movement are in fact bare wh-pronouns, which one also finds in polarity contexts, that are licensed by the interpretable Q+wh-feature located in the Interrogative Projection. Because the bare wh-pronouns do not come with a wh-feature, they do not have to move. I conclude that wh-movement in Slovenian only appears to be optional.
Keywords: multiple wh-fronting, short movement, optionality, Interrogative Projection, Left Periphery, Low Periphery, bare wh-pronouns, wh-in-situ
Published in RUNG: 10.11.2015; Views: 7944; Downloads: 406
.pdf Full text (1,43 MB)

Search done in 0.02 sec.
Back to top