Connectivity in Specificational Sentences

This paper is concerned with the relationship between the semantics of specificational and predicational sentences and the Connectivity effects they display. It discusses the advantages and disadvantages of semantic and syntactic approaches to Connectivity (the ‘unconstrained-be theory’, the ‘question-in-disguise theory’, and the ‘unclefting theory’), concluding that a semantic theory of Connectivity is not only preferable, but necessary. The paper also discusses the implications of such a move regarding Binding phenomena (i.e., Principle A, B, and C effects): adopting a semantic theory of Connectivity requires a theory of Binding which is different from the standard GB Binding Theory.

[1]  E. Williams.  Thematic structure in syntax , 1994 .

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

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

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

[5]  Craige Roberts,et al.  Modal subordination, anaphora, and distributivity , 1990 .

[6]  Anna Szabolcsi,et al.  Bound variables in syntax (Are there any , 1987 .

[7]  Utpal Lahiri,et al.  Embedded interrogatives and predicates that embed them , 1991 .

[8]  David Lebeaux,et al.  Relative Clauses, Licensing, and the Nature of the Derivation , 1991 .

[9]  Yael Sharvit.  The syntax and semantics of functional relative clauses , 1997 .

[10]  T. Zimmermann.  On the proper treatment of opacity in certain verbs , 1992 .

[11]  E. Williams.  Semantic vs. syntactic categories , 1983 .

[12]  Tanya Reinhart,et al.  Coreference and bound anaphora: A restatement of the anaphora questions , 1983 .

[13]  T. Reinhart,et al.  The innateness of binding and coreference , 1993 .

[14]  David Lebeaux,et al.  Language acquisition and the form of the grammar , 2000 .

[15]  Sigrid Beck,et al.  Degree Questions, Maximal Informativeness, and Exhaustivity , 1996 .

[16]  Pauline Jacobson.  Towards a Variable-Free Semantics , 1999 .

[17]  Peter Nathan Lasersohn,et al.  Generalized Distributivity Operators , 1998 .

[18]  Yael Sharvit.  Functional Dependencies and Indirect Binding , 1996 .

[19]  Yael Sharvit,et al.  Functional Relative Clauses , 1999 .

[20]  D. Cresti.  Extraction and reconstruction , 1995 .

[21]  Jane B. Grimshaw,et al.  English wh-constructions and the theory of grammar : a dissertation , 1977 .

[22]  Anna Szabolcsi.  Quantifiers in Pair-List Readings , 1997 .

[23]  Pauline Jacobson,et al.  Binding Connectivity in Copular Sentences , 1994 .

[24]  D. Fox.  Reconstruction, Binding Theory, and the Interpretation of Chains , 1999, Linguistic Inquiry.

[25]  Michael Rochemont,et al.  The Syntax and Semantics of Cleft Constructions , 1980 .

[26]  Peter Geach,et al.  Referring Expressions Again , 1964 .

[27]  Hotze Rullmann,et al.  Maximality in the semantics of wh -constructions , 1995 .

[28]  Veneeta Dayal.  Locality in Wh quantification , 1996 .

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

[30]  Pauline Jacobson.  On the Quantificational Force of English Free Relatives , 1995 .

[31]  André Meinunger,et al.  Pseudoclefts and ellipsis , 2000 .

[32]  A. Kroch,et al.  Pseudocleft Connectedness: Implications for the LF Interface Level , 1999, Linguistic Inquiry.

[33]  C. L. Hamblin.  QUESTIONS IN MONTAGUE ENGLISH , 1976 .

[34]  C. Heycock.  Asymmetries in reconstruction , 1995 .

[35]  Jeroen Groenendijk,et al.  Semantic analysis of wh-complements , 1982 .

[36]  Robert Freidin,et al.  Fundamental Issues in the Theory of Binding , 1986 .

[37]  C. Pollard.  Anhaphors in English and the scope of binding theory , 1992 .

[38]  Marcia C. Linebarger,et al.  Negative polarity and grammatical representation , 1987 .