DOCSLIB.ORG

Glow Conference Booklet Final

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Glow Conference Booklet Final Table of Contents Organizing Committee………………………………………………………..…1 Speaker List……………………………………………………………………...2 Chair List………………………………………………………………………...5 Campus Map…………………………………………………………………......6 Notices…………………………………………………………………………...7 Program………………………………………………………………………….9 Abstracts………………………………………………………………………..14 Transportation…………..…………………………………………………......185 Practical Information………...……………………………………………......188 Off-Campus Dining………..….……………………………………………....189 List of Participants…..………………………………………………………...190 Staff…………………………………………………………………………...193 GLOW in Asia X 第十屆亞洲舊世界生成語言學會議 May 24-26, 2014 The executive committee C.-T. James HUANG Harvard University/Academia Sinica K. A. JAYASEELAN English and Foreign Languages University Thomas Hun-tak LEE The Chinese University of Hong Kong Anoop K. MAHAJAN University of California, Los Angeles Mamoru SAITO Nanzan University Yuji TAKANO Kinjo Gakuin University Wei-tien Dylan TSAI National Tsing Hua University Local organizing committee Honorary conference chair Yueh-chin CHANG National Tsing Hua University Conference chair Hui-chuan HSU National Tsing Hua University Committee members Feng-fan HSIEH National Tsing Hua University I-Ta Chris HSIEH National Tsing Hua University Hui-chuan J. HUANG National Tsing Hua University/Academia Sinica Wei-tien Dylan TSAI National Tsing Hua University 1 Speaker List Opening Keiko MURASUGI Nanzan University Keynote Speakers C.-T. James HUANG Harvard University Academia Sinica Richard S. KAYNE New York University Michael KENSTOWICZ Massachusetts Institute of Technology Panel on Syntactic Cartography in Comparative Perspective Liliane HAEGAMAN Ghent University Hilda KOOPMAN University of California, Los Angeles Panel on the Syntax-Phonology Interface Laura J. DOWNING Göteborgs Universitet Irene VOGEL University of Delaware Speakers and Authors Raghavachari AMRITAVALLI English and Foreign Languages University Shasha AN Macquarie University Suyoung BAE Dongguk University Rahul BALUSU English and Foreign Languages University Michael BARRIE Sogang University Luosha BI City University of Hong Kong Theresa BIBERAUER University of Cambridge/Stellenbosch University Adina Camelia BLEOTU Università Ca' Foscari Venezia Pritha CHANDRA Indian Institute of Technology Delhi Jui-yi CHUNG Nanjing University Stephen CRAIN Macquarie University Samuel EPSTEIN University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Richard FAURE Université de Nice-Sophia Antipolis Liqun GAO Beijing Language and Culture University Alessandra GIORGI Università Ca' Foscari Venezia Nobu GOTO Toyo University Elena GUERZONI University of Southern California 2 Ambalika GUHA English and Foreign Languages University Sona HAROUTYUNIAN Università Ca' Foscari Venezia Xiaowei HE Guangdong University of Foreign Studies Semoon HOE Seoul National University Xuhui HU University of Cambridge Yusuke IMANISHI Massachusetts Institute of Technology Kwansei Gakuin University Yu IKEMOTO Kinki University Hayeon JANG Seoul National University K. A. JAYASEELAN English and Foreign Languages University Gurmeet KAUR Indian Institute of Technology Delhi Hezao KE University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Jaieun KIM Sogang University Kwang-sup KIM Hankuk University of Foreign Studies Taewoo KIM Seoul National University Hideki KISHIMOTO Kobe University Hisatsugu KITAHARA Keio University Takeo KURAFUJI Ritsumeikan University/Harvard University Utpal LAHIRI English and Foreign Languages University Paul LAW City University of Hong Kong Jenny LEE Harvard University Seunghun LEE Central Connecticut State University Xiao LI Queens College, City University of New York Hongyong LIU South China Normal University Chi-Ming Louis LIU Harvard University Na LIU Tianjin Normal University Shuying LIU Beijing Language and Culture University Mioko MIYAMA University of Tokyo Hisashi MORITA Aichi Prefectural University Nobuaki NISHIOKA Kyushu University Toshiko ODA Tokyo Keizai University Hajime ONO Tsuda College Bum-Sik PARK Dongguk University J. Joseph PERRY University of Cambridge Ian ROBERTS University of Cambridge 3 Yosuke SATO National University of Singapore T. Daniel SEELY Eastern Michigan University Saetbyol SEO Seoul National University Zheng SHEN University of Connecticut Yoshiyuki SHIBATA University of Connecticut Koji SHIMAMURA University of Connecticut Chih-hsiang SHU Academia Sinica Lan SUN University of Science and Technology of China Saurov SYED University of Southern California Takumi TAGAWA University of Tsukuba Przemysław TAJSNER Adam Mickiewicz University Kensuke TAKITA Mie University Hideharu TANAKA Osaka University Koichi TATEISHI Kobe College Lyn TIEU École Normale Supérieure Rosalind THORNTON Macquarie University Hisao TOKIZAKI Sapporo University Satoshi TOMIOKA University of Delaware Seid TVICA Universiteit van Amsterdam Yuyun WANG University of Southern California Ting-Chi WEI National Kaohsiung Normal University Hideaki YAMASHITA Yokohama City University Barry C.-Y. YANG National United University Carryn YONG University of Oxford Riichi YOSHIMURA Kyushu University Haopeng YU Henan Normal University Hedde ZEIJLSTRA Goerg-August-Universität Göttingen Ya ZHAO Northwest University for Nationalities Peng ZHOU Macquarie University 4 Chair List One-soon HER National Chengchi University Miao-Ling HSIEH National Taiwan Normal University I-Ta Chris HSIEH National Tsing Hua University Hui-chuan HSU National Tsing Hua University Hui-chuan J. HUANG National Tsing Hua University W.-W. Roger LIAO Academia Sinica Jo-Wang LIN National Chiao Tung University C.-S. Luther LIU National Chiao Tung University James MYERS National Chung Cheng University William SNYDER University of Connecticut Wei-tien Dylan TSAI National Tsing Hua University Niina ZHANG National Chung Cheng University 5 6 Notices 1. Presentation Oral presentations: Each oral presentation has been assigned a 45-minute slot, which will be timed by your session’s chair. Please plan for a 30-minute presentation followed by 15 minutes of discussion. You will hear bell rings and see the corresponding cards to remind you of the passing time: 25 minutes: a card for “5 minutes left” 30 minutes: a short ring with a “stop” card and move on to the Q & A session 45 minutes: two short rings (time’s up) and move on to the next talk Poster presentations: Posters are numbered (see program). Please mount your poster on a poster board with the correct poster number. Posters may be mounted at 10:00am. Don’t forget to remove your poster at the end of the day! Facilities: The conference room is equipped with a PC laptop computer and a projector for Keynote/PowerPoint presentation. All presenters who plan to use the projector for their presentation are kindly asked to test their files prior to the session during a break. Please ask a member of staff for assistance. 2. WiFi WiFi service will be available around the headquarter of the Linguistics institute (Rooms B305, 306, HSS Building). Network name: nthu-ling; Password: 09876. iTaiwan: You may also use our nation-wide free WiFi service: http://itaiwan.gov.tw/en/ on-and-off campus. NB: iTaiwan is not available in the HSS Building, the conference venue, though. 3. Lunch Lunch boxes are provided for all registered participants. Please have your lunch at Rooms B303, B304, B306A, and C310. C310 -------------------------Stairs------------------------- B305 B304 Office B303 B306A 3F ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Stairs‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 2F 7 4. Banquet The conference banquet will be held at Garden.V restaurant (菜園餐廳), 19:00-21:00, May 25, 2014. The shuttle bus will be leaving for Garden.V restaurant in front of the HSS Building at 18:30. Please be advised to bring your invitation card with you. 5. Shuttle bus There will be shuttle buses picking up conference attenders from the hotels below to the conference venue (HSS Building, NTHU) every morning. But notice that there will be NO shuttle bound for Berkely Hotel (Science Park). Bound for Conference venue (HSS Building, NTHU) 5/24-26 8:00 (Berkerly Hotel) 8:15 (Main gate of NTHU) Conference venue 8:00 (Lakeshore Hotel) Conference venue Bound for Lakeshore Hotel (Metropolis) 5/26 18:30 (Conference venue) Lakeshore Hotel (Metropolis) 6. Campus shuttle bus (Weekdays) You may take free campus shuttle to HSS Building, too. The route is as follows: Chemistry Building/Main gate → Casa de Socrates Café → Maple Path → College of Life Science (across the road from the conference venue: College of Humanities and Social Sciences) → TSMC Building → the South Gate (Destination). Timetable & Route chart 8 Program Saturday, May 24, 2014 All talks are at Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS) Building, Room A202 8:15-8:50 Registration 8:50-9:00 Opening: Keiko Murasugi (Nanzan University) 9:00-10:00 Keynote Speech 1 Chair: Jo-Wang Lin (National Chiao Tung University) C.-T. James Huang (Harvard University/Academia Sinica) Passives forever: control, raising and implicit arguments.……………………......14 10:00-10:15 Coffee Break Session 1 Chair: Miao-Ling Hsieh (National Taiwan Normal University) 10:15-11:00 Satoshi Tomioka (University of Delaware) Ellipsis with Focused Antecedent.…………………….........................................15 11:00-11:45 Chi-Ming Louis Liu (Harvard University) ‘Subjectless’ sentences and ellipsis.……………………........................................18 11:45-12:30 Ting-chi Wei (National Kaohsiung Normal University) Form and meaning mapping in Chinese fragment.……………………................21 12:30-1:30 LUNCH 1:30-2:30 POSTER SESSION 1 (3rd floor lobby, Area B, HSS Building) 1. Suyoung Bae & Bum-sik Park (Dongkuk University) The variability
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Amount Superlatives and Measure Phrases
    City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works All Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects 9-2018 Amount Superlatives and Measure Phrases E. Cameron Wilson The Graduate Center, City University of New York How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/2949 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] AMOUNT SUPERLATIVES AND MEASURE PHRASES by E. CAMERON WILSON A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Linguistics in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, The City University of New York 2018 © 2018 E. CAMERON WILSON All Rights Reserved ii Amount Superlatives and Measure Phrases by E. Cameron Wilson This manuscript has been read and accepted for the Graduate Faculty in Linguistics in satisfaction of the dissertation requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. _____________________ ________________________________ Date Sam Al Khatib Chair of Examining Committee _____________________ ________________________________ Date Gita Martohardjono Executive Officer Supervisory Committee: Sam Al Khatib William McClure Jon Nissenbaum Yael Sharvit THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK iii ABSTRACT Amount Superlatives and Measure Phrases by E. Cameron Wilson Advisor: Sam Al Khatib This dissertation provides a novel analysis of quantity superlatives by bringing together research on three interrelated topics: superlative ambiguity, semantic constraints on measure constructions, and the internal structure of the extended nominal phrase. I analyze the quantity words, most, least, and fewest as superlatives of quantificational adjectives (Q-adjectives), but argue that these are often embedded inside a covert measure construction, rather than directly modifying the overt noun.
    [Show full text]
  • UC Berkeley UC Berkeley Electronic Theses and Dissertations
    UC Berkeley UC Berkeley Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title Association with Foci Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0ns534g1 Author Toosarvandani, Maziar Doustdar Publication Date 2010 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Association with Foci by Maziar Doustdar Toosarvandani A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Line Mikkelsen, Chair Professor Andrew Garrett Professor Johanna Nichols Professor Christopher Potts Spring 2010 Abstract Association with Foci by Maziar Doustdar Toosarvandani Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics University of California, Berkeley Professor Line Mikkelsen, Chair Association with focus has, since Jackendoff’s (1972) dissertation, been the object of intense study. Most researchers, however, have concentrated on explaining the semantic variability of only and even, whose truth conditions vary with the position of focus. I take as my starting point another property of associating expressions. Both only and even restrict the distribution of focus, a prop- erty that, I argue, they share with a range of other lexical items. But, while only and even take a single argument and require there to be a focus somewhere inside that argument, expressions like adversative but and let alone take two arguments, thereby associating with two foci. Associating expressions, of both the one- and two-place varieties, have two things in common. First, they are crosscategorial in their syntax, taking arguments of a variety of different types. Second, they evoke multiple alternatives— different possible answer to a question.
    [Show full text]
  • Contrastive Topic: Meanings and Realizations
    University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Doctoral Dissertations Dissertations and Theses Fall November 2014 Contrastive Topic: Meanings and Realizations Noah Constant University of Massachusetts Amherst Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_2 Part of the Linguistics Commons Recommended Citation Constant, Noah, "Contrastive Topic: Meanings and Realizations" (2014). Doctoral Dissertations. 171. https://doi.org/10.7275/5694973.0 https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_2/171 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Dissertations and Theses at ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CONTRASTIVE TOPIC: MEANINGS AND REALIZATIONS A Dissertation Presented by NOAH CONSTANT Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Massachusetts Amherst in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY September 2014 Department of Linguistics © Copyright by Noah Constant 2014 All Rights Reserved CONTRASTIVE TOPIC: MEANINGS AND REALIZATIONS A Dissertation Presented by NOAH CONSTANT Approved as to style and content by: Angelika Kratzer, Chair Elisabeth Selkirk, Member Seth Cable, Member Adrian Staub, Member John Kingston, Department Head Department of Linguistics ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The ideas in these pages—all the good ones at least—are the fruit of conversations. The most numerous and the most enjoyable of these were conversations with my committee members, so first and foremost, I’d like to thank them. It’s hard to convey the extent to which my committee provided all the essential seeds, from which the work grew.
    [Show full text]
  • Alternative Semantics, Focus Domains and Contrast Annotating Corpora with Information Structure ESSLLI 2014
    Philosophische Fakultät Sonderforschungsbereich 732 Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft Institut für Maschinelle Sprachverarbeitung Alternative Semantics, Focus Domains and Contrast Annotating Corpora with Information Structure ESSLLI 2014 Kordula De Kuthy and Arndt Riester August 21, 2014 Two important theoretical contributions in the past (1) a. Who is laughing? b. JOHNfocus [is laughing]given=background . I Of the two most influential focus frameworks in the past 30 years, one concentrates on the focus part, the other on the given part. I Mats Rooth’s Alternative Semantics (Rooth 1985, 1992, 1996, 2010) is based on the idea that focus triggers (contrastive) alternatives. I Roger Schwarzschild (Schwarzschild 1999) develops a technical givenness notion. I Contemporary theories of information structure, such as Büring (2008); Beaver & Clark (2008); Wagner (2012) and others, mainly build on, and combine, ideas from Rooth and Schwarzschild. 2 | Kordula De Kuthy and Arndt Riester c 2014 Universität Tübingen, Universität Stuttgart Mats Rooth (Cornell University) 3 | Kordula De Kuthy and Arndt Riester c 2014 Universität Tübingen, Universität Stuttgart “Ordinary” semantic values, as known from Montague semantics S: like(m; s) ((hh (((( hhhh (((( hhhh DP: m VP: λx[like(x; s)] ``` ```` Mary V: λy[λx[like(x; y)]] DP: s likes Sue Notation: [[Mary]]o = m [[likes Sue]]o = λx[like(x; s)] etc. 4 | Kordula De Kuthy and Arndt Riester c 2014 Universität Tübingen, Universität Stuttgart Alternative semantic values (focus semantic values) Idea: focusing adds an “alternative” semantic value (a set). “the focus semantic value for a phrase of category S is the set of propositions obtainable from the ordinary semantic value by making a substitution in the position corresponding to the focused phrase.” (Rooth 1992, p.76) o (2) a.
    [Show full text]
  • Surprise-Predicates, Strong Exhaustivity and Alternative Questions∗
    Proceedings of SALT 25: 225–245, 2015 Surprise-predicates, strong exhaustivity and alternative questions∗ Maribel Romero University of Konstanz Abstract Factive emotive verbs like surprise and disappoint disallow the strongly exhaustive reading of wh-questions and do not embed alternative questions (nor polar questions) (Guerzoni & Sharvit 2007; Lahiri 1991; a.o.). This paper develops a novel account of this correlation by exploiting a property of surprise-type verbs so far overlooked in the question literature: their focus-sensitivity. These verbs are treated as degree constructions where the comparison term –the selected type of answer to the question– must be a member of the comparison class C shaped by focus. Strongly exhaustive answers of wh-questions do not match the comparison class and are thus ruled out. Alternative questions fail to produce a suitable C both for strongly and for weakly exhaustive answers and are, hence, entirely disallowed. Keywords: question, focus, exhaustivity, alternative question, embedding predicates, factive emotive verbs 1 Introduction When comparing verbs that embed interrogative complements, two restrictions have been noted to apply to factive emotive predicates like surprise, disappoint and annoy. The first restriction concerns the readings of embedded wh-questions (WhQs) in terms of degrees of exhaustivity. Wonder- and know-V(erbs) allow for the strongly exhaustive reading of a WhQ (Groenendijk & Stokhof 1984), under which the interrogative [who (out of set S) walks] is assigned the denotation in (1) and inference (2) is valid. But factive emotive verbs do not allow for the strongly exhaustive reading (Sharvit 2002; Guerzoni & Sharvit 2007; a.o.; pace Klinedinst & Rothschild 2011: fn.
    [Show full text]
  • The Pragmatic Ingredients to Get Perfect Biscuits1 María BIEZMA — University of Konstanz Arno GOEBEL — University of Konstanz
    [To appear in Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 21.] The pragmatic ingredients to get perfect biscuits1 María BIEZMA — University of Konstanz Arno GOEBEL — University of Konstanz Abstract. Building on previous work, we present a proposal for a pragmatic account of biscuit conditionals (BCs). We present a new phenomenon that we dub biscuit perfection to support our proposal and argue that differences between BCs and hypothetical conditionals can be explained once we consider the relation between if -constructions and discourse. Keywords: Biscuit conditionals, contrastive topic, inferences in conditionals, causality. 1. Introduction There is a contrast between the two if -constructions in (1): (1) a. If you are hungry, I’ll give you some biscuits. b. If you are hungry, there are biscuits on the sideboard. In its most prominent reading, an utterance of (1a) conveys that whether I give you biscuits or not depends on you being hungry. If -constructions with this reading are often called hypothet- ical conditionals, (HCs). In contrast, by uttering (1b) the speaker conveys that there are biscuits on the sideboard regardless of whether you are hungry or not, and in addition conveys a sug- gestion to eat the biscuits to still hunger. If -constructions with this reading are called biscuit conditionals after Austin’s (1956) original example or, e.g., relevance conditionals (although in these cases the consequent is not at all ‘conditional’ on the antecedent). This contrast has been characterized as a difference in information update within a Stalnakerian model of com- munication (Stalnaker, 2002, 2014): the consequents in HCs update only the temporary context created by the antecedent clause, while in BCs the consequents update the entire context set.
    [Show full text]
  • Association with Foci
    Association with Foci by Maziar Doustdar Toosarvandani A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Line Mikkelsen, Chair Professor Andrew Garrett Professor Johanna Nichols Professor Christopher Potts Spring 2010 Abstract Association with Foci by Maziar Doustdar Toosarvandani Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics University of California, Berkeley Professor Line Mikkelsen, Chair Association with focus has, since Jackendoff’s (1972) dissertation, been the object of intense study. Most researchers, however, have concentrated on explaining the semantic variability of only and even, whose truth conditions vary with the position of focus. I take as my starting point another property of associating expressions. Both only and even restrict the distribution of focus, a prop- erty that, I argue, they share with a range of other lexical items. But, while only and even take a single argument and require there to be a focus somewhere inside that argument, expressions like adversative but and let alone take two arguments, thereby associating with two foci. Associating expressions, of both the one- and two-place varieties, have two things in common. First, they are crosscategorial in their syntax, taking arguments of a variety of different types. Second, they evoke multiple alternatives— different possible answer to a question. Together, these two independent properties of associating expressions interact with the question under discussion (Roberts 1996, 2004) to give rise to the restriction on the distribution of focus. My approach to association with focus departs from previous ones in important ways.
    [Show full text]
  • Probing Syntax and Semantics with French Propre A
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Los Angeles On her own Parsimonious Compositionality: Probing Syntax and Semantics with French propre A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics by Isabelle Charnavel 2012 © Copyright by Isabelle Charnavel 2012 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION On her own Parsimonious Compositionality: Probing Syntax and Semantics with French propre by Isabelle Charnavel Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics University of California, Los Angeles, 2012 Professor Dominique Sportiche, Chair This dissertation focuses on the French word propre roughly meaning ‘characteristic-of’ and corresponding to English own found in ‘her own thesis’. This adjective makes extremely varied and complex contributions to the meaning and properties of sentences it occurs in. The present work addresses the question of how these contributions arise. Parsimoniously assuming a unique lexical entry for propre, these contributions are compositionally derived by a specific DP-internal structure and different interactions with focus. More precisely, propre is analyzed as taking as argument a possessive relation characterized as most specific. Unlike postnominal propre , prenominal propre exhibits ii three main readings called restrictive, possessor and possessum propre : restrictive propre has a standard intersective truth-conditional effect; possessor and possessum propre do not, but induce focus alternatives respectively to the possessor and to the possessum; possessum propre moreover gives rise to scalarity effects. These readings are argued to derive from a principle of minimization and different interactions with focus; in particular, the behavior of possessum propre shows the presence of a covert focus operator akin to even . When combined with a pronominal possessor like son (‘his’), the behavior of propre provides probes bearing on binding theoretic issues.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Generalization About Gapping*
    A new generalization about gapping* Maziar Toosarvandani University of California, Santa Cruz June 9, 2015 Gapping removes the finite element (T and its host), possibly along with additional material, in the second and subsequent coordinates of a coordination structure, leaving behind two remnants. (The material that has gone missing— in1, the finite auxiliary had and the main verb ordered— is represented with ‘D’.) (1) Some had ordered mussels, and others D swordfish. Building on a long tradition of earlier work, Johnson(2009:293) identifies three unique properties that distinguish gapping from superficially similar elliptical constructions, such as pseudogapping, e.g. Some had ordered mussels, and others had D swordfish. First, gapping is restricted to coordination structures (2)(Jackendoff 1971:22, Han- kamer 1979:18f.). Second, the gap in gapping cannot be embedded (3)(Hankamer 1979:19). Third, the antecedent in gapping cannot be embedded (4)(Hankamer 1979:20). (2)* Some had eaten mussels, because others D shrimp. (3)* Some had eaten mussels, and she claims that others D shrimp. (4)* She’s said Peter has eaten his peas, and Sally D her green beans, so now we can have dessert. Intended: ‘She has said that Peter has eaten his peas; Sally has eaten her green beans.’ (Johnson 2009:293) Crucially,4 is ungrammatical under an interpretation in which only the antecedent clause— not the gapped clause— is embedded. (The sentence is grammatical with a different inter- pretation, one that is not relevant here, where the entire conjunction is embedded.) *I am immensely grateful to Nate Clair, Elizabeth Coppock, Annahita Farudi, Danny Fox, Kyle Johnson, Laura Kertz, Ben Mericli, David Pesetsky, Craig Sailor, Bern Samko, and audiences at Cornell University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Northwestern University, the University of California, Santa Cruz, the University of Rochester, and Wayne State University for their questions and suggestions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Focus Marking in Disjunctive Questions: a QUD-Based Approach*
    Proceedings of SALT 30: 654–673, 2020 The role of focus marking in disjunctive questions: A QUD-based approach* Morwenna Hoeks University of California Santa Cruz Abstract Disjunctive questions are ambiguous: they can either be interpreted as polar questions (PolQs), as open disjunctive questions (OpenQs), or as closed alternative questions (ClosedQ). The goal of this paper is to show that the difference in interpretation between these questions can be derived via effects of focus marking directly. In doing so, the proposal brings out the striking parallel between the prosody of questions with foci/contrastive topics on the one hand and that of alternative questions on the other. Unlike previous approaches, this proposal does not rely on structural differences between AltQs and PolQs derived via ellipsis or syntactic movement. To show how this works out, an account of focus and contrastive topic marking in questions is put forward in which f-marking in questions determines what constitutes a possible answer by signaling what the speaker’s QUD is like. By imposing a congruence condition between f-marked questions and their answers that requires answers to resolve the question itself as well as its signaled QUD, we predict the right answerhood conditions for disjunctive questions. Keywords: focus, disjunction, alternative semantics, questions, contrastive topics, intonation 1 Introduction Disjunctive questions such as (1) are well-known to be ambiguous (Bartels 1999; Han & Romero 2004; Beck 2006; Pruitt & Roelofsen 2013; Roelofsen 2015; Meertens 2019). (1) Did Tony drink coffee or tea? XPolQ, XClosedQ XOpenQ Questions like (1) can be disambiguated by prosody. For example, when (1) is pronounced with a rising boundary tone and a flat intonation on the disjunction, it is interpreted as a polar question (PolQ), which allows for both “yes" and “no" responses as shown in (2) below.
    [Show full text]
  • 381 Embedding the Antecedent in Gapping: Low Coordination
    SQUIBS AND DISCUSSION 381 Schlenker, Philippe. 2014. Iconic features. Natural Language Seman- tics 22:299–356. Schlenker, Philippe. To appear. Super monsters–Part I. Semantics and Pragmatics. Schlenker, Philippe, Jonathan Lamberton, and Mirko Santoro. 2013. Iconic variables. Linguistics and Philosophy 36:91–149. Schwarzschild, Roger. 1999. GIVENness, AvoidF and other con- straints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Seman- tics 7:141–177. Vallduvı´, Enric. 1992. The informational component. New York: Garland. Wilbur, Ronnie B. 1999. Stress in ASL: Empirical evidence and lin- guistic issues. Language and Speech 42:229–250. Wilbur, Ronnie B. 2012. Information structure. In Sign language: An international handbook, ed. by Roland Pfau, Markus Stein- bach, and Bencie Woll, 462–489. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Wilbur, Ronnie B., and Aleix M. Martı´nez. 2002. Physical correlates of prosodic structure in American Sign Language. In Papers from the 38th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Soci- ety, ed. by Mary Andronis, Erin Debenport, Anne Pycha, and Keiko Yoshimura, 693–704. Chicago: University of Chicago, Chicago Linguistic Society. Wilbur, Ronnie B., and Cynthia Patschke. 1998. Body leans and mark- ing contrast in ASL. Journal of Pragmatics 30:275–303. EMBEDDING THE ANTECEDENT IN 1 Introduction GAPPING: LOW COORDINATION Gapping removes the finite element (T and its host), possibly along AND THE ROLE OF PARALLELISM with additional material, in the second and subsequent coordinates of Maziar Toosarvandani a coordination structure, leaving behind two remnants. (The material University of California, that has gone missing—in (1), the finite auxiliary had and the main Santa Cruz verb ordered—is represented with ⌬.) (1) Some had ordered mussels, and others ⌬ swordfish.
    [Show full text]
  • Issn 2531-5935
    2015, vol. 37 ISSN 2531-5935 The Rivista di Grammatica Generativa/Research in Generative Grammar (RGG) is a journal devoted to the dissemination of research within the generative paradigm. It is an open access journal, hosted by the linguistic archive LEAR (http://lear.unive.it/jspui/handle/11707/593) of the Center for Language Sciences of Ca’ Foscari University, Venice. All articles published in the journal are subject to an anonymous peer review process. Editors in Chief Guglielmo Cinque (Università Ca’ Foscari,Venezia) Luigi Rizzi (Università di Siena, Université de Genève) Associate Editorial Board Manuela Ambar (Universidade de Lisboa), Paola Benincà (Università di Padova), Adriana Belletti (Università di Siena), Luciana Brandi (Università di Firenze), Luigi Burzio (The Johns Hopkins University), Noam Chomsky (MIT), Patrizia Cordin (Università di Trento), Violeta Demonte (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid), Alessandra Giorgi (Università Ca’ Foscari, Venezia), Giorgio Graffi (Università di Verona), Richard Kayne (New York University), Michael Kenstowicz (MIT), Giulio Lepschy (UCL, London and Cambridge University), Giuseppe Longobardi (Università di Trieste), Maria Rita Manzini (Università di Firenze), Joan Mascaró (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona), Nicola Munaro (Università Ca’ Foscari, Venezia), Marina Nespor (Università di Milano-Bicocca), Jean-Yves Pollock (Université Paris- Est Marne-la-Vallée), Annarita Puglielli (Università di Roma III), Andrew Radford (University of Essex), Lorenzo Renzi (Università di Padova), Alain Rouveret
    [Show full text]