Intervention Effects Follow from Focus Interpretation*

The paper provides a semantic analysis of intervention effects in wh-questions. The interpretation component of the grammar derives uninterpretability, hence ungrammaticality, of the intervention data. In the system of compositional interpretation that I suggest, wh-phrases play the same role as focused phrases, introducing alternatives into the computation. Unlike focus, wh-phrases make no ordinary semantic contribution. An intervention effect occurs whenever a focus-sensitive operator other than the question operator tries to evaluate a constituent containing a wh-phrase. It is argued that this approach can capture the universal as well as the crosslinguistically variable aspects of intervention effects, in a way that is superior to previous approaches. Further consequences concern other focus-related constructions: multiple focus data, NPI licensing, and alternative questions.

[1]  Utpal Lahiri Focus and Negative Polarity in Hindi , 1998 .

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

[3]  Lisa Chang,et al.  Wh-in-situ phenomena in French , 1997 .

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

[5]  Katharina Hartmann,et al.  The Syntax And Semantics Of Focus-Sensitive ParticlesIn German , 2001 .

[6]  Sigrid Beck,et al.  Presupposition Projection and the Interpretation of 'which'-­Questions , 1998 .

[7]  Stephen Robert Berman,et al.  On the semantics and logical form of {\it wh\/} -clauses , 1991 .

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

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

[10]  Arnim von Stechow,et al.  Wh-Scope Marking , 2000 .

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

[12]  David I. Beaver,et al.  Always and Only: Why Not All Focus-Sensitive Operators Are Alike , 2003 .

[13]  K. A. Jayaseelan Questions and Question‐word Incorporating Quantifiers in Malayalam , 2001 .

[14]  Elena Herburger,et al.  Focus and the LF of NP quantification , 1993 .

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

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

[17]  Manfred Krifka,et al.  Additive Particles under Stress , 1998 .

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

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

[20]  T. Reinhart Wh-in-situ - An apparent paradox , 1992 .

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

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

[23]  L. Martí Contextual Variables as Pronouns , 2003 .

[24]  Sigrid Beck,et al.  Intervention Effects in Alternative Questions , 2007 .

[25]  Junko Shimoyama,et al.  Wh -constructions in Japanese , 2001 .

[26]  K Manfred,et al.  FOUR THOUSAND SHIPS PASSED THROUGH THE LOCK: OBJECT-INDUCED MEASURE FUNCTIONS ON EVENTS , 1990 .

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

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

[29]  Satoshi Tomioka,et al.  Pragmatics of LF intervention effects: Japanese and Korean Wh-interrogatives , 2007 .

[30]  Mats Rooth Association with focus , 1985 .

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