The role of alternatives and strength in grammar

The present thesis investigates the role of semantic alternatives and logical strength in a number of empirical domains. Firstly, the thesis deals with the semantic contribution of focus on (bound) pronouns (chapters 2-3). The main results are as follows: First, focus on bound pronouns is interpreted by an operator (Rooth 1992b) in the scope of the binding quantifier. Second, contrastiveness is encoded in the semantics of the operator interpreting focus. Third, it is argued that the grammar must allow for the concept of compositional reconstruction, which makes it possible to generate more alternatives for focus licensing than would otherwise be available. Lastly, it is suggested that Schwarzschild’s 1999 principle of AvoidF should be viewed as an instance of Maximize Presupposition! following Truckenbrodt (1995). Chapter 4 deals with intervention effects in German wh-questions. Building on a new empirical generalization, it is suggested that intervention effects are semantic in nature. However, existing semantic proposals such as Beck’s 2006 and Kratzer and Shimoyama’s 2002 cannot deal with this generalization straightforwardly. Following Chierchia’s 2004 analysis of NPI-licensing, it is argued that wh-expressions denote existential quantifiers and introduce domain alternatives. It is suggested that the alternatives of the clausal node differing only in the size of the domains for the existential quantifier must be such that the disjunction of the propositions in the question denotation is equivalent to the ordinary value of the clausal node. In constructions exhibiting intervention effects, the alternatives are not ordered by disjunction, making the question denote the empty set. Chapter 5 (partly based on joint work with Benjamin Spector) argues for a generalization of Fox’s 2000 Scope Economy condition. In particular, it is shown that inverse scope representations are only allowed by the grammar if the resulting interpretation is not stronger

[1]  G. Chierchia Questions with quantifiers , 1992 .

[2]  W. Bonney Pronouns and Variables. , 1974 .

[3]  H. Savin,et al.  The projection problem for presuppositions , 1971 .

[4]  Association Focus , 1999 .

[5]  Danny Fox,et al.  Economy and Semantic Interpretation , 1999 .

[6]  A. M. Ramer Mathematical Methods in Linguistics , 1992 .

[7]  Laura Kallmeyer,et al.  LTAG Semantics for Questions , 2004, TAG+.

[8]  E. Williams Blocking and anaphora , 1997 .

[9]  Uli Sauerland,et al.  The meaning of chains , 1998 .

[10]  Angelika Kratzer,et al.  What ‘must’ and ‘can’ must and can mean , 1977 .

[11]  J. Hawkins Definiteness and indefiniteness: a study in reference and grammaticality prediction , 1978 .

[12]  Bart Geurts,et al.  Interpreting focus , 2004 .

[13]  Sigrid Beck,et al.  Quantified structures as barriers for LF movement , 1996 .

[14]  A. Kratzer Scope or Pseudoscope? Are there Wide-Scope Indefinites? , 1998 .

[15]  Jay David Atlas,et al.  'Only' Noun Phrases, Pseudo-Negative Generalized Quantifiers, Negative Polarity Items, and Monotonicity+ , 1996, J. Semant..

[16]  M. Krifka Association with focus phrases , 2006 .

[17]  Shin-Sook Kim Intervention Effects are Focus Effects , 2001 .

[18]  E Bustos Pragmatics, implicature, presuposition and logical form (gazdar g) , 1980 .

[19]  Hotze Rullman,et al.  First and Second Person Pronouns as Bound Variables , 2004, Linguistic Inquiry.

[20]  Mats Rooth A theory of focus interpretation , 1992, Natural Language Semantics.

[21]  G. Chierchia,et al.  The Grammatical View of Scalar Implicatures and the Relationship between Semantics and Pragmatics , 2008 .

[22]  Gerald Gazdar,et al.  A solution to the projection problem , 1979 .

[23]  Regine Eckardt,et al.  Comments to interpreting focus by Bart Geurts and Rob Van der Sandt , 2004 .

[24]  Irene Heim,et al.  Features on bound pronouns , 2005 .

[25]  Joachim Jacobs,et al.  Fokus und Skalen , 1983 .

[26]  T. Reinhart Wh-in-situ in the Framework of the Minimalist Program , 1998 .

[27]  Anna Szabolcsi,et al.  Weak islands and an algebraic semantics for scope taking , 1993 .

[28]  Junko Shimoyama,et al.  Indeterminate Phrase Quantification in Japanese , 2006 .

[29]  Danny Fox,et al.  The universal density of measurement , 2007 .

[30]  E. G. Ruys,et al.  The scope of indefinites , 1992 .

[31]  Ray Jackendoff,et al.  Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar , 1972 .

[32]  Marga Reis On The Syntax Of So-Called Focus Particles In German – A Reply To Büring And Hartmann 2001 , 2005 .

[33]  Uli Sauerland,et al.  A pragmatic constraint on ambiguity detection , 2009 .

[34]  Márta Abrusán,et al.  A Semantics for Degree Questions Based on Intervals: Negative Islands and Their Obviation , 2011, J. Semant..

[35]  Benjamin Spector Scalar Implicatures: Exhaustivity and Gricean Reasoning , 2004 .

[36]  Manfred Krifka Quantifying into Question Acts , 2001 .

[37]  Elena Guerzoni,et al.  Even-NPIs in YES/NO Questions , 2004 .

[38]  D. Pesetsky,et al.  ON THE INTERPRETATION OF WIDE-SCOPE INDEFINITES* , 1999 .

[39]  John Robert Ross,et al.  Constraints on variables in syntax , 1967 .

[40]  Ivan A. Sag,et al.  Deletion And Logical Form , 1976 .

[41]  William A. Ladusaw Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relations , 1980 .

[42]  G. Chierchia,et al.  Broaden Your Views: Implicatures of Domain Widening and the Logicality of Language , 2006, Linguistic Inquiry.

[43]  C. Mayr Contrastive salient alternatives: Focus on bound pronouns , 2010 .

[44]  Alexis Dimitriadis Function Domains in Variable-Free Semantics , 2001 .

[45]  Elisabeth Selkirk,et al.  Phonology and Syntax: The Relation between Sound and Structure , 1984 .

[46]  A. Avramides Studies in the Way of Words , 1992 .

[47]  Chung-chieh Shan Binding Alongside Hamblin Alternatives Calls for Variable-free Semantics , 2004 .

[48]  Virginia Mary Brennan,et al.  Root and epistemic modal auxiliary verbs , 1993 .

[49]  Roger Schwarzschild,et al.  GIVENNESS, AVOIDF AND OTHER CONSTRAINTS ON THE PLACEMENT OF ACCENT* , 1999 .

[50]  J. Barwise,et al.  Generalized quantifiers and natural language , 1981 .

[51]  D. Pesetsky Phrasal Movement and Its Kin , 2000 .

[52]  Chris Barker,et al.  Dynamic excursions on weak islands , 1998 .

[53]  Daniel Büring,et al.  What’s New (and What’s Given) in the Theory of Focus? , 2008 .

[54]  U. Sauerland The Silent Content of Bound Variable Pronouns , 2004 .

[55]  Márta Abrusán,et al.  Contradiction and grammar : the case of weak islands , 2007 .

[56]  Robert van Rooij,et al.  Pragmatic Meaning and Non-monotonic Reasoning: The Case of Exhaustive Interpretation , 2006 .

[57]  Daniel Büring,et al.  The Meaning of Topic and Focus: The 59th Street Bridge Accent , 1997 .

[58]  W. N. BOND The Value of G , 1936, Nature.

[59]  D. Over,et al.  Studies in the Way of Words. , 1989 .

[60]  Manfred Krifka,et al.  A Compositional Semantics for Multiple Focus Constructions , 1991 .

[61]  A. Gualmini,et al.  The Question–Answer Requirement for scope assignment , 2008 .

[62]  Robin Cooper,et al.  Quantification and Syntactic Theory , 1983 .

[63]  Hubert Truckenbrodt,et al.  Phonological phrases : their relation to syntax, focus, and prominence , 1995 .

[64]  Cheng-Teh James Huang,et al.  Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar , 1998 .

[65]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Beyond explanatory adequacy . Eliminating labels , 2001 .

[66]  Carla Umbach,et al.  Contrast and Information Structure: A Focus-Based Analysis of but , 2005 .

[67]  Michael Wagner,et al.  Association by movement: evidence from NPI-licensing , 2007 .

[68]  UIi Sauerland The Content of Pronouns: Evidence from Focus , 2000 .

[69]  Jeroen Groenendijk,et al.  On the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers , 1984 .

[70]  Siobhan Chapman Logic and Conversation , 2005 .

[71]  Richard S. Kayne Overt vs. Covert Movements , 1998 .

[72]  Irene Heim,et al.  Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation: A Reinterpretation of Reinhart's Approach * , 1998 .

[73]  Michael Rochemont,et al.  Focus in Generative Grammar , 1986 .

[74]  L. Karttunen Syntax and Semantics of Questions , 1977 .

[75]  T. Stowell,et al.  Distributivity and Negation: The Syntax of Each and Every , 1997 .

[76]  Angelika Kratzer,et al.  The Event Argument and the Semantics of Verbs , 2002 .

[77]  Benjamin Spector,et al.  Not Too Strong ! Generalizing the Scope Economy Condition , 2010 .

[78]  Benjamin Spector 10: Scalar Implicatures: Exhaustivity and Gricean Reasoning , 2007 .

[79]  Yo Matsumoto The conversational condition on horn scales , 1995 .

[80]  B. Geurts Indefinites and Choice Functions , 2000, Linguistic Inquiry.

[81]  Kai von Fintel,et al.  NPI Licensing, Strawson Entailment, and Context Dependency , 1999, J. Semant..

[82]  M. Dalrymple,et al.  Reciprocal Expressions and the Concept of Reciprocity , 1998 .

[83]  Paul D. Elbourne Situations and individuals , 2005 .

[84]  Jacob Hoeksema,et al.  The semantics of exception phrases , 1996 .

[85]  D. Fox Free Choice and the Theory of Scalar Implicatures , 2007 .

[86]  M. Krifka At least some Determiners aren ’ t Determiners , 1999 .

[87]  Jon Gajewski,et al.  Licensing strong NPIs , 2011 .

[88]  Richard Montague,et al.  The Proper Treatment of Quantification in Ordinary English , 1973 .

[89]  Arnim von Stechow,et al.  Artikel und Definitheit Articles and Definiteness , 1991 .

[90]  Christopher Tancredi Deletion, deaccenting and presupposition , 1992 .

[91]  I. Heim E-Type pronouns and donkey anaphora , 1990 .

[92]  Gennaro Chierchia,et al.  Anaphora and dynamic binding , 1992 .

[93]  A. Kratzer More Structural Analogies Between Pronouns and Tenses , 1998 .

[94]  Uli Sauerland,et al.  Scalar Implicatures in Complex Sentences , 2004 .

[95]  Elisabeth Selkirk,et al.  Sentence Prosody: Intonation, Stress and Phrasing , 1996 .

[96]  Angelika Kratzer,et al.  The Representation of Focus , 1991 .

[97]  Irene Heim,et al.  Presupposition Projection and the Semantics of Attitude Verbs , 1992, J. Semant..

[98]  M. Krifka,et al.  The Semantics and Pragmatics of Polarity Items , 2003 .

[99]  Irene Heim,et al.  Semantics in generative grammar , 1998 .

[100]  Michael Wagner,et al.  Givenness and Locality , 2006 .

[101]  Irene Heim,et al.  Intensional Semantics Lecture Notes , 2005 .

[102]  S. Wurmbrand Modal Verbs Must Be Raising Verbs , 2000 .

[103]  Barbara Hall Partee,et al.  Formal semantics of Natural Language: Deletion and variable binding , 1975 .

[104]  S. Cable,et al.  The grammar of Q : Q-particles and the nature of Wh-fronting, as revealed by the Wh-questions of Tlingit , 2007 .

[105]  Danny Fox,et al.  Extraposition and Scope: A case for overt QR* , 2009 .

[106]  M. Linebarger The grammar of negative polarity , 1981 .

[107]  T. Reinhart Anaphora and semantic interpretation , 1983 .

[108]  Elena Guerzoni,et al.  Intervention effects on NPIs and feature movement: towards a unified account of intervention , 2007 .

[109]  Paul D. Elbourne,et al.  The Interpretation of Pronouns , 2008, Lang. Linguistics Compass.

[110]  Uli Sauerland,et al.  DON'T INTERPRET FOCUS! ∗ WHY A PRESUPPOSITIONAL ACCOUNT OF FOCUS FAILS AND HOW A PRESUPPOSITIONAL ACCOUNT OF GIVENNESS WORKS , 2005 .

[111]  Sigrid Beck,et al.  Intervention Effects Follow from Focus Interpretation* , 2006 .

[112]  F. Zwarts Three Types of Polarity , 1997 .

[113]  T. Reinhart Quantifier Scope: How labor is Divided Between QR and Choice Functions , 1997 .

[114]  Mats Rooth,et al.  Ellipsis redundancy and reduction redundancy , 1992 .

[115]  Dag E. Wold Long Distance Selective Binding: The Case of Focus , 1996 .

[116]  Jeffrey Kaplan Obligatory too in English , 1984 .

[117]  Sigrid Beck,et al.  On wh- and Operator Scope in Korean , 1997 .

[118]  Giorgio Magri A theory of individual-level predicates based on blind mandatory scalar implicatures , 2009 .

[119]  Kai von Fintel,et al.  Epistemic Containment , 2003, Linguistic Inquiry.

[120]  Sigrid Beck,et al.  Wh-constructions and transparent Logical Form , 1996 .

[121]  K. Sæbø PRESUPPOSITION AND CONTRAST: GERMAN aber AS A TOPIC PARTICLE , 2003 .

[122]  Laurence R. Horn,et al.  On the semantic properties of logical operators in english' reproduced by the indiana university lin , 1972 .

[123]  R. May Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation , 1985 .

[124]  Michael Bennett,et al.  Questions in Montague grammar , 1979 .

[125]  Y. Winter,et al.  Choice Functions and the Scopal Semantics of Indefinites , 1997 .

[126]  Laurence R. Horn A Natural History of Negation , 1989 .

[127]  Irene Heim,et al.  The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases : a dissertation , 1982 .

[128]  Andreas Haida,et al.  The Indefiniteness and Focusing of Wh-Words , 2008 .

[129]  D. Fox Economy and scope , 1995 .

[130]  Jacob Hoeksema,et al.  TOPICS IN THE SYNTAX AND SEMANTICS OF INFINITIVES AND GERUNDS - CHIERCHIA,G , 1991 .

[131]  H. Rullmann,et al.  A Flexible Approach to Exhaustivity in Questions , 1999 .

[132]  Gisbert Fanselow,et al.  Scrambling as NP-Movement , 1990 .

[133]  Kai-Uwe Von Fintel,et al.  Restrictions on quantifier domains , 1994 .

[134]  Pauline Jacobson Paychecks, Stress, and Variable-Free Semantics , 2000 .