The intervention effect in Suzhounese polar questions

2016

In this paper we analyse polar questions characterized by the fronting of a focal constituent, as attested in Sicilian, Sardinian, Italian, Bulgarian, Russian. Taking Sicilian as our case study, we reject the hypothesis that the ‘open polarity’ of the question obtains via movement of a polarity operator from within the sentence radical, and we argue that the Polar Question operator must be directly inserted on top of the compositional structure. As for the interpretive import of Focus fronting, we show that it does not affect the question denotation, but rather it contributes non-at-issue content: either a mirative conventional implicature – whereby the questioned proposition is unexpected as compared to other more likely alternatives – or a ‘double-checking’ presupposition, whereby it is presupposed that one in a set of contextually relevant alternatives is true.

This paper revisits intervention effects in Mandarin Chinese why-questions. I present a novel empirical generalization, in which it is shown that the ability for quantifiers to induce intervention hinges upon their monotonicity and their ability to be interpreted as topics. I then propose a semantic account of intervention that correlates topicality with the monotone properties of intervening operators. A crucial assumption in this account is that why-questions in Chinese are idiosyncratic, in that the Chinese equivalent of why directly merges at a high scope position that stays above a propositional argument. Combining the semantic idiosyncrasies of why-questions with the theory of topicality, I conclude that a wide range of intervention phenomena can be explained in terms of interpretation failure.

Yearbook of the Poznan Linguistic Meeting, 2016

This paper revisits intervention effects in Mandarin Chinesewhy-questions. I present new data showing that the ability for quantifiers to induce intervention hinges upon their monotonicity and their ability to be interpreted as topics. I then develop a semantic account that correlates topicality with monotone properties. Furthermore, I propose thatwhy-questions in Chinese are idiosyncratic in thatwhydirectly merges at a high scope position that stays above a propositional argument. Combining the semantic idiosyncrasies ofwhy-questions with the wide scope behaviors of topicality, I conclude that my account explains a wide range of intervention phenomena in terms of interpretation failure.

Metaknowledge polar-questions as dialogic triggers for Topic-Comment constructions, 2022

The object of this paper is a discourse pattern found quite frequently in Italian conversations which consists of two Topic-Comment dialogic constructions. These are usually realized as «sai <X>? <Y>» and «(hai) presente <X>? <Y>» (both loosely translatable as "Y'know/ recall <X>? <Y>"), where X is a newly introduced noun phrase, or even a subordinate clause (e.g. a descriptive when-clause), and Y can be one or more interrelated predications which are meant as a comment on X made by the same speaker who asked the initial question. Both constructions are triggered by a strongly oriented polar-question that, in these specific contexts, can employ almost interchangeably, verbs which are not equivalent in other contexts (sapere, lit. "to know", and avere presente, broadly meaning "to recall"), showing a semantic change of sapere due to the loss, in these contexts, of its usual restrictions in referent selection. As often happens with other constructions of everyday speech, this dialogic pattern affords an excellent vantage point from which it is possible to better understand the interplay between live speech and grammar, a subject notoriously neglected in traditional grammar. The two constructions provide, for instance, a better understanding of the notions of sentence Topics and discourse Topics and also pose the question of whether any similar distinctions should be made within the complementary notion of Comment. Last but not least, the specific metaknowledge sequences that start the two constructions may shed some light on the role of prosody (and of intonation proper) in grammaticalization processes and on information distribution in question-answer patterns. In short, and with a view to traditional grammar revisions, the two constructions provide yet another proof of the smooth trade-off between textually diluted (or dialogically distributed) structures and more compacted ones, providing further confirmation of the emergent nature of grammar and the interactional genesis of many (apparently) "monologic" constructions.

2017

2014

Quanti er scope is an interface phenomenon that raises important questions concerning the processing of not only monolingual but also bilingual speakers. In this paper, we build upon the ndings by Scontras et al. (to appear) by investigating and comparing the scope interpretations available for doubly quanti ed sentences such as Every shark attacked a pirate not only in Mandarin Chinese and English, but crucially in heritage Mandarin. Our results reinforce that (i) Mandarin does not exhibit inverse scope; and (ii) English exhibits inverse scope even when a quanti er is embedded in a relative clause, thus supporting the head-raising analysis of relativization (Vergnaud 1974, Kayne 1994). They also prove that (iii) heritage Mandarin does not demonstrate inverse scope, which conforms to the Processing Scope Economy principle (Anderson 2004).

Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 2015

The paper raises the topic of what the functional and logical notion of subject is. It examines the syntax-semantic nature of Icelandic and Polish quirky subject constructions (subjectless clauses in which the initial DP bears oblique Case) with psych-verbs. Of main interest is the full vs. default agreement on V which nominative DPs and quirky subjects always trigger, respectively. We attempt to define the primitive notion of subject from two standpoints – its LF representation and how it is mirrored syntactically by the predication relation of the subject with respect to vP/VP and the proposition of the sentence in TP between the subject and T′. We discuss the semantic and configurational dependencies between quirky subjects and nominative DPs and vP and TP/CP. The paper investigates also the landing site for non-nominative initial DPs and argues for the Topic Phrase in the Left Periphery (Rizzi 1997) as a most natural candidate to host quirky subjects. Hopefully, the conclusions ...

2002

In this paper I will argue that the semantics of contrastive topic (CT), which is commonly treated as a discourse related notion on a par with topic and focus, can be assimilated to that of a paradigm of focus particles, showing evidence from CT related phenomena, e.g., reversed polarity pressuposition, scalar implicature, and scope inversion.

Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 2015

In this paper, we investigate focus intervention effects in Mandarin multiple wh-questions, showing that such effects arise only if a focus particle and its focus associate intervene between the interrogative complementizer C [Q] and one or more in-situ wh-phrases. We further show that focus intervention effects are not observed when a focus particle takes all the in-situ wh-phrases in its c-command domain as its focus associates. Adopting Pesetsky and Torrego's (2007) feature-sharing view of Agree, we propose that the dependency between C [Q] and an in-situ wh-phrase can be reduced to an Agree relation. In addition, adopting Rizzi's (2004) refined version of Relativized Minimality, we propose that focus intervention effects are induced by the presence of a Focus Phrase that prohibits C [Q] from establishing proper dependencies with the in-situ wh-phrases.

Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, 2007

In the first part of the paper, I propose a framework for focus and question interpretation. While both serve to introcude alternatives, I offer reasons that the two kinds of alternatives arise on different levels of semantic interpretation. The resulting approach can correctly account for all possible constellations of focus and questions, including intervention effects, without the use of type shifts In the second part of the paper, I will investigate data which suggest that the presence/absence of focus features correlate with a question/indefinite interpretation of wh-words. I propose that the semantic closeness is motivated diachronically. Importantly, type shifts between question alternatives and properties are possible steps in diachrony, but not part of the productive part of semantic interpretation. PART I: Questions and Focus 1. Questions and focus: some combined models The first part of the paper offers a simple and concise account that integrates focus interpretation in the tradition of Rooth (1985), and question interpretation in the tradition of Hamblin (1973). While it is more than obvious that the two accounts should be combined (Rooth 1985, 1992 and many followers), specific proposals for a common syntax/semantics/pragmatics interface do not abound. In this first section, I will list some proposals and discuss why a genuine overarching analysis is still missing. 1.1 Rooth and Karttunen One elegant and troublefree way to combine focus and questions consists in taking a (Neo-) Karttunen computation of question semantics (= sets of possible answers) 2 together with a Rooth type derivation of focus alternatives. The details of the derivation, specifically the question interpretation, have been explored in many papers about question semantics, e.g. Heim 1994, Beck 1996, von Stechow 1991 and others, and I will not recapitulate the technicalities here. However, those who really believe in the power of alternative semantics will not be satisified with this solution, because the crucial sets of propositions are computed in two entirely different fashions. The Rooth-Karttunen combination offers no clue whether question formation and focussing share semantic/pragmatic features, or whether they just lead to the same semantic objects at the end of the day, by sheer accident. 1.2 Beck 2006 Beck 2006 develops a very elaborate multi-dimensional Karttunen account where question alternatives and focus alternatives are modelled as sets of assignments for alternative-1 A slightly longer version is available in the Semantics Archive, URochester, or on the authors homepage. Extensions specifically concern sections 7 and 8. 2 Karttunen's (1977) requirement that the meaning of a question be the set of true answers is usually dismissed, for reasons that would lead us too far here.