1887
image of (No) variation in the grammar of alternatives

Abstract

Abstract

The paper reports the results of an in-depth crosslinguistic study of intervention effects and the grammar of alternatives in a typologically diverse sample of five languages: Palestinian Arabic (Afro-Asiatic, Semitic), Russian (Indo-European, Slavic), Samoan (Austronesian, Oceanic), Turkish (Altaic, Turkic), and Yoruba (Niger-Congo, Defoid). In all of these languages, we find an interesting asymmetry in that focus evaluation interrupts question evaluation and causes an intervention effect, but not vice versa. We take our data to inform the crosslinguistic analysis of two alternative-evaluating operators, the squiggle operator and the question operator. To capture the observed absence of variation, we propose two semantic universals: The squiggle operator unselectively evaluates all alternatives in its scope. The question operator, on the other hand, is selective.

Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lv.19010.how
2021-03-22
2021-05-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/10.1075/lv.19010.how/lv.19010.how.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/lv.19010.how&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Adesola, Oluseye
    2005 Pronouns and null operators: A-bar dependencies and relations in Yoruba. New Brunswick: Rutgers The State University of New Jersey dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2006 On the absence of superiority and weak-crossover effects in Yoruba. Linguistic Inquiry27(2). 309–318. 10.1162/ling.2006.37.2.309
    https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2006.37.2.309 [Google Scholar]
  3. Alonso-Ovalle, Luis
    2006 Disjunction in alternative semantics. Amherst: University of Massachusetts dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Arslan, Zekiye C.
    1999 Approaches to wh-structures in Turkish. İstanbul: Boğaziçi Üniversitesi M.A. thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Awobuluyi, Oladele
    1978Essentials of Yoruba grammar. Ibadan: Oxford University Press Nigeria.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Aygen, Gülşat
    2007 Q-Particle. Journal of Linguistics and Literature4(1). 1–30.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bade, Nadine, & Konstantin Sachs
    2019 EXH passes on alternatives: a comment on Fox and Spector (2018). Natural Language Semantics27(1). 19–45. 10.1007/s11050‑019‑9149‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-019-9149-7 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bailyn, John F.
    2012The syntax of Russian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Baker, Carl L.
    1968 Indirect questions in English. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 1970 Notes on the description of English questions: The role of an abstract question morpheme. Foundations of Language6(2). 197–219.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Baker, Mark C.
    2010 Formal generative typology. The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, 285–312.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Bamgbose, Ayo
    2000A grammar of Yoruba. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Bechhofer, Robin
    1985 WHO said WHAT to WHOM? … in Turkish. InSusumo Kuno (ed.), Harvard studies in syntax and semantics, 349–404. Cambridge: Department of Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Beaver, David & Brady Clark
    2003 Always and only: Why not all focus-sensitive operators are alike. Natural Language Semantics11(4). 323–362. 10.1023/A:1025542629721
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025542629721 [Google Scholar]
  15. Beaver, David I. & Brady Z. Clark
    2008Sense and sensitivity: How focus determines meaning. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781444304176
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444304176 [Google Scholar]
  16. Beck, Sigrid
    1996Wh-constructions and transparent Logical Form. Tübingen: Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 2006 Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics14(1). 1–56. 10.1007/s11050‑005‑4532‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-005-4532-y [Google Scholar]
  18. 2016 Focus-sensitive operators. InCaroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds.), The Oxford handbook of information structure, 227–250. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. . To appear. Parameters of crosslinguistic variation in semantics. InDaniel Gutzmann, Lisa Matthewson, Cecile Meier, Hotze Rullmann & Thomas Zimmermann eds. The Blackwell companion to semantics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Beck, Sigrid & Shin-Sook Kim
    2006 Intervention effects in alternative questions. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics9(3). 165–208. 10.1007/s10828‑006‑9005‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10828-006-9005-2 [Google Scholar]
  21. Beck, Sigrid; Svetlana Krasikova, Daniel Fleischer, Remus Gergel, Stefan Hofstetter, Christiane Savelsberg, John Vanderelst & Elisabeth Villalta
    2009 Crosslinguistic variation in comparison constructions. Linguistic Variation Yearbook9. 1–66. 10.1075/livy.9.01bec
    https://doi.org/10.1075/livy.9.01bec [Google Scholar]
  22. Beck, Sigrid; Toshiko Oda & Koji Sugisaki
    2004 Parametric variation in the semantics of comparison: Japanese versus English. Journal of East Asian Linguistics13(4). 289–344. 10.1007/s10831‑004‑1289‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10831-004-1289-0 [Google Scholar]
  23. Beck, Sigrid & Shravan Vasishth
    2009 Multiple focus. Journal of Semantics26(2). 159–184. 10.1093/jos/ffp001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffp001 [Google Scholar]
  24. Berezovskaya, Polina
    2020 Comparing comparatives: new perspectives from fieldwork and processing. Tübingen: Eberhard Karls Universität dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Berezovskaya, Polina & Anna Howell
    2020 (No) variation in the grammar of alternatives: Intervention effects in Russian. Proceedings of Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics26, 1–19.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Berezovskaya, Polina & Vera Hohaus
    2015 The crosslinguistic inventory of phrasal comparative operators: Evidence from Russian. Proceedings of Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics22. 1–22.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Biezma, Maria & Kyle Rawlins
    2015 Alternative questions. Language and Linguistics compass9(11). 361–406. 10.1111/lnc3.12161
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12161 [Google Scholar]
  28. Bochnak, M. Ryan
    2013 Crosslinguistic variation in the semantics of comparatives. Chicago: University of Chicago dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Bochnak, M. Ryan; Vera Hohaus & Anne Mucha
    2019 Variation in tense and aspect, and the temporal Interpretation of complement clauses. Journal of Semantics36(3). 407–452. 10.1093/jos/ffz008
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffz008 [Google Scholar]
  30. Bošković, Željko
    2002 On Multiple Wh-Fronting. Linguistic Inquiry33(3). 351–383. 10.1162/002438902760168536
    https://doi.org/10.1162/002438902760168536 [Google Scholar]
  31. Bowler, Margaret
    2016 The status of degrees in Warlpiri. Proceedings of TripleA2. 1–17.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Braun, Julia
    2016 Intervention effects in Palestinian Arabic. Tübingen: Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen B.A. thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 2018 Intervention effects in Palestinian Arabic: How question formation becomes degraded. Proceedings of TripleA4. 65–78.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Bruening, Benjamin & Vivan Lin
    2001 Discontinuous QPs and LF interference effects in Passamaquoddy. Proceedings of the Semantics of Under-Represented Languages of the Americas5. 20–28.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Büring, Daniel & Katharina Hartmann
    2001 The syntax and semantics of focus-sensitive particles in German. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory19(2). 229–281. 10.1023/A:1010653115493
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010653115493 [Google Scholar]
  36. Cable, Seth
    2010The grammar of Q: Q-Particles, wh-Movement, and pied-piping. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195392265.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195392265.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  37. 2013 Beyond the past, present, and future: Towards the semantics of graded tense in Gĩkũyũ. Natural Language Semantics21(3). 219–276. 10.1007/s11050‑012‑9092‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-012-9092-3 [Google Scholar]
  38. Calhoun, Sasha
    2015 The interaction of prosody and syntax in Samoan focus marking. Lingua165(2). 205–229. 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.11.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.11.007 [Google Scholar]
  39. Calhoun, Sascha
    2017 Exclusives, equatives and prosodic phrases in Samoan. Glossa2(1), 11. 1–43. 10.5334/gjgl.196
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.196 [Google Scholar]
  40. Chen, Sihwei; Vera Hohaus, Rebecca Laturnus, Meagan Louie, Lisa Matthewson, Hotze Rullmann, Ori Simchen, Claire K. Turner & Jozina Vander Klok
    2017 Past possibility crosslinguistically: Evidence from 12 languages. InAna Arregui, Maria-Luisa Rivero & Andres P. Salanova (eds.), Modality across syntactic categories, 235–287. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Dayal, Veneeta
    1996Locality in wh-quantification: Questions and relative clauses in Hindi. London: Kluwer. 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑4808‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4808-5 [Google Scholar]
  42. Deal, Amy Rose & Vera Hohaus
    2019 Vague predicates, crisp judgments. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung23. 347–364.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Drubig, H. Bernhard
    1994 Island constraints and the syntactic nature of focus and association with focus. Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340 “Sprachtheoretische Grundlagen für die Computerlinguistik”51. 1–62.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Durmaz, Şehriban
    2016Echo questions and the grammar of alternatives: A contrastive analysis. Tübingen: Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen Zulassungsarbeit.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Durmaz, Şehriban
    2017 Echo questions and the grammar of alternatives: A contrastive analysis. Tübingen: Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen M.A. thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Eilam, Aviad
    2011 Explorations in the informational component. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Eisenberg, Peter
    2013Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik. Berlin: Metzler.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Erlewine, Michael Y. & Hadas Kotek
    2017 Movement and alternatives don’t mix: Evidence from Japanese. Proceedings of the Amsterdam Colloquium21. 245–254.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Erlewine, Michael. Y. & Hadas Kotek
    2018 Focus association by movement: Evidence from Tanglewood. Linguistic Inquiry49(3). 441–463. 10.1162/ling_a_00263
    https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00263 [Google Scholar]
  50. Fox, Danny
    2007 Free choice and the theory of scalar implicatures. InUli Sauerland & Penka Stateva (eds.), Presupposition and Implicature in Compositional Semantics, 71–120. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230210752_4
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230210752_4 [Google Scholar]
  51. Fox, Danny & Benjamin Spector
    2018 Economy and embedded exhaustification. Natural Language Semantics26(1). 1–50. 10.1007/s11050‑017‑9139‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-017-9139-6 [Google Scholar]
  52. Göksel, Aslı & A. Sumru Özsoy
    2003dA: A focus/topic-associated clitic in Turkish. Lingua113(11). 1143–1167. 10.1016/S0024‑3841(03)00016‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(03)00016-0 [Google Scholar]
  53. Gracanin-Yüksek, Martina
    2016 Alternative questions in Turkish. Dilbilim Arastirmalari 2016/1. 39–68.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Haida, Andreas
    2007 The indefiniteness and focusing of wh-words. Berlin: Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Haida, Andreas & Sophie Repp
    2013 The intervention effect: Focus alternatives or indefinite alternatives? Experimental evidence. Proceedings of the Amsterdam Colloquium19. 131–138.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Hamblin, Charles L.
    1973 Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language10(1). 41–53.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Heim, Irene & Angelika Kratzer
    1998Semantics in generative grammar. Malden: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Hohaus, Vera
    2015 Context and composition: How presuppositions restrict the interpretation of free variables. Tübingen: Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Hohaus, Vera & Anna Howell
    2015 Alternative semantics for focus and questions: Evidence from Samoan. Proceedings of the Austronesian Fomal Linguistics Association21. 69–86.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Hohaus, Vera & M. Ryan Bochnak
    2020 The grammar of degree: Gradability across languages. Annual Reviews in Linguistics6. 235–259. 10.1146/annurev‑linguistics‑011718‑012009
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011718-012009 [Google Scholar]
  61. Honcoop, Martin
    1998 Dynamic excursions on weak islands. Leiden: Universiteit Leiden dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Horn, Laurence R.
    1972 On the semantic properties of logical operators in English. Los Angeles: University of California dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Howell, Anna
    2020 Alternative semantics across languages: case studies on disjunctive questions and free choice items in Samoan and Yoruba. Tübingen: Eberhard Karls Universität dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. 2016 A Hamblin semantics for alternative questions in Yoruba. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung20. 359–376.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Huang, C. T. James
    1982 Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Isleem, Nasser M.
    2010Colloquial Palestinian Arabic: An introduction to the spoken dialect. Norwell: Alucen.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. İşsever, Selçuk
    2003 Information structure in Turkish: The word order–prosody interface. Lingua113(11). 1025–1053. 10.1016/S0024‑3841(03)00012‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(03)00012-3 [Google Scholar]
  68. 2009A syntactic account of wh-in situ in Turkish. InSıla Ay, Özgür Aydın, İclâl Ergenç, Seda Gökmen, Selçuk İşsever & Dilek Peçenek (eds.), Essays on Turkish linguistics, 103–112. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Jacobs, Joachim
    1983Fokus und Skalen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783111351889
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111351889 [Google Scholar]
  70. Kamali, Beste & Lena Karvovskaya
    2013Also in Turkish and Ishkashimi. Proceedings of the Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics8. 181–186.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Karttunen, Lauri
    1977 Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy1(1). 3–44. 10.1007/BF00351935
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00351935 [Google Scholar]
  72. Kelepir, Meltem
    2001 Topics in Turkish syntax: Clausal structure and scope. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Kim, Shin-Sook
    2002 Intervention effects are focus effects. Japanese/Korean Linguistics10. 615–628.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Kitagawa, Yoshihisa; Katsuo Tamaoka and Satoshi Tomioka
    2013 “Prosodic Matters in Intervention Effects in Japanese: An Experimental Study,” Lingua124, 41–63. 10.1016/j.lingua.2012.01.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.01.006 [Google Scholar]
  75. König, Ekkehard
    1991The meaning of focus particles: A comparative perspective. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. 1993 Focus particles. InJ. Jacobs, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld & Theo Vennemann (eds.), Syntax: Ein internationales Handbuch, 978–987. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110095869.1.14.978
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110095869.1.14.978 [Google Scholar]
  77. Kornfilt, Jaklin
    1984 Case Marking, Agreement, and Empty Categories in Turkish. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University doctoral dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. 1997aTurkish grammar. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. 1997b On the syntax and morphology of relative clauses in Turkish. InYazı Kuruluadına & Ahmet Kocaman (eds.), Dilbilim Ara ̧stırmaları, 24–51. Ankara: Kebıkeç Yayınları.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Kornfilt, Jaklin; Susumu Kuno & Engin Sezer
    1980 A note on criss-crossling double dislocation. Harvard Studies in Syntax and Semantics3. 185–242.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Kotek, Hadas & Michael Y. Erlewine
    2016 Covert pied-piping in English multiple wh-questions. Linguistic Inquiry47(4). 669–693. 10.1162/LING_a_00226
    https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00226 [Google Scholar]
  82. Kratzer, Angelika
    1991 The representation of focus. InArnim von Stechow & Michael Herwig (eds.), Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung, 825–835. Berlin: De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Krifka, Manfred
    1992 A compositional semantics for multiple focus constructions. InJoachim Jacobs (ed.), Informationsstruktur und Grammatik, 17–53. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. 10.1007/978‑3‑663‑12176‑3_2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-663-12176-3_2 [Google Scholar]
  84. 1999 Additive particles under stress. Proceedings of SALT8. 111–128. 10.3765/salt.v8i0.2799
    https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v8i0.2799 [Google Scholar]
  85. 2006 Association with focus phrases. InValerie Molnar & Susanne Winkler, The architecture of focus, 105–136. Berlin: De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Kural, Murat
    1993 Scrambling and mixed positions in Turkish. Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society22. 259–272.
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Lutz, Uli; Gereon Müller & Arnim von Stechow
    (2000, eds.). Wh-scope marking. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.37
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.37 [Google Scholar]
  88. Matthewson, Lisa
    2004 On the methodology of semantic fieldwork. International Journal of American Linguistics70(4). 369–451. 10.1086/429207
    https://doi.org/10.1086/429207 [Google Scholar]
  89. 2006 Temporal semantics in a superficially tenseless language. Linguistics and Philosophy6(29). 673–713.
    [Google Scholar]
  90. 2011 Methods in crosslinguistic formal semantics. InClaudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul H. Portner (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, vol.1, 268–284. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110226614.268
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226614.268 [Google Scholar]
  91. Matthewson, Lisa & Kai von Fintel
    2008 Universals in semantics. The Linguistic Review25(1–2). 139–201.
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Mayr, Clemens
    2013 Consequences of an alternatives semantics for the analysis of intervention effects. InAnamaria Fălăuş (ed.), Alternatives in semantics, 123–149. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9781137317247_5
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137317247_5 [Google Scholar]
  93. 2014 Intervention effects and Additivity. Journal of Semantics31(4). 513–554. 10.1093/jos/fft010
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/fft010 [Google Scholar]
  94. McLoughlin, Leslie J.
    1982Colloquial Arabic (Levantine). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Mosel, Ulrike & Even Hovdhaugen
    1992Samoan reference grammar. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Özçelik, Öner & Miho Nagai
    2011 Multiple subject positions: A case of perfect match between syntax and prosody. Proceedings of WCCFL28. 303–312.
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Özsoy, Sumru & Aslı Göksel
    2003 Focus in Turkish. Lingua113(11): 1021–1023. 10.1016/S0024‑3841(03)00011‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(03)00011-1 [Google Scholar]
  98. Ogihara, Toshiyuki & Yael Sharvit
    2012 Embedded tenses. InRobert I. Binnick (ed.), The Oxford handbook of tense and aspect, 638–668. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Pesetsky, David
    2000Phrasal movement and its kin. Cambridge: The MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/5365.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5365.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  100. Renans, Agata; Malte Zimmermann & Markus Greif
    2011Questionnaire on focus semantics. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam.
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Rooth, Mats
    1985 Association with focus. Amherst: University of Massachusetts dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  102. 1992 A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics1(1). 75–116. 10.1007/BF02342617
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02342617 [Google Scholar]
  103. 1996 Focus. InShalom Lappin (ed.), The handbook of contemporary semantic theory, 271–298. Malden: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Ruangjaroon, Sugunya
    2002 Thai wh in-situ. Paper presented at the14th Northwest Linguistics Conference, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby.
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Rudin, Catherine
    1988 On multiple questions and multiple wh-fronting. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory6(4). 445–501. 10.1007/BF00134489
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00134489 [Google Scholar]
  106. Shlonsky, Ur
    1997Clause structure and word order in Hebrew and Arabic: An essay in comparative semitic syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  107. von Stechow, Arnim
    1991 Focusing and background operators. InWerner Abraham (ed.), Discourse particles: Descriptive and theoretical investigations on the logical, syntactic and pragmatic properties of discourse particles in German, 37–83. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.12.04ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.12.04ste [Google Scholar]
  108. Stepanov, Arthur
    1998 On wh-fronting in Russian. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of North East Linguistic Society28. 453–467.
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Sudhoff, Stefan
    2010Focus particles in German: Syntax, prosody, and information structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/la.151
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.151 [Google Scholar]
  110. Tomioka, Satoshi
    2007 Pragmatics of LF intervention effects: Japanese and Korean wh-interrogatives. Journal of Pragmatics39(9). 1570–1590. 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.03.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.03.002 [Google Scholar]
  111. 2017 Maximality mimics exhaustivity: A case study of dake ‘only’ in Japanese. Poster presented atGLOW in Asia XI, University of Singapore, Singapore.
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Tonhauser, Judith
    2011 Temporal reference in Paraguayan Guaraní, a tenseless language. Linguistics and philosophy34(3). 257–303. 10.1007/s10988‑011‑9097‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-011-9097-2 [Google Scholar]
  113. 2015 Crosslinguistic temporal references. Annual Review of Linguistics1. 129–154. 10.1146/annurev‑linguist‑030514‑124923
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-124923 [Google Scholar]
  114. Uegaki, Wataru
    2014 Japanese alternative questions are disjunctions of polar questions. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory24. 42–62. 10.3765/salt.v24i0.2423
    https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v24i0.2423 [Google Scholar]
  115. Wagner, Michael
    2006 Association by movement: Evidence from NPI-licensing. Natural Language Semantics14(4). 297–324. 10.1007/s11050‑007‑9005‑z
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-007-9005-z [Google Scholar]
  116. Winans, Lauren
    2019 Alternatives and disjunction in Egyptian Arabic. InKlaus von Heusinger, V. Edgar Onea Gaspar & Malte Zimmermann (eds.), Questions in discourse, 231–285. Leiden: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Wold, Dag
    1996 Long distance selective binding: The case of focus. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory6. 311–328. 10.3765/salt.v6i0.2766
    https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v6i0.2766 [Google Scholar]
  118. Zifonun, Gisela; Ursula Brauße, Ludger Hoffmann, Bruno Strecker, & Joachim Ballweg
    1997Grammatik der deutschen Sprache, vol.1. Berlin: De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Zimmermann, Malte & Edgar Onea
    2011 Focus marking and focus interpretation. Lingua121(11). 1651–1766. 10.1016/j.lingua.2011.06.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2011.06.002 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/lv.19010.how
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/lv.19010.how
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error