DOCSLIB.ORG

The Disunity of Crossover Phenomena 1 a Crossover Typology

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Disunity of Crossover Phenomena 1 a Crossover Typology Comments on ‘Explaining crossover and superiority as left-to-right evaluation’ by Chung-Chieh Shan and Chris Barker The disunity of crossover phenomena Christopher Potts UC Santa Cruz and UMass, Amherst [email protected] (1) “Our analysis rules out strong and weak crossover in a single stroke.” (Shan and Barker 2003:5) These notes gather together evidence that crossover is not a unified phenomenon. I conclude from this that it shouldn’t be analyzed uniformly. I then highlight some adjustments that seem necessary to account for the disunity in Barker and Shan’s terms. 1 A crossover typology The boxed/unboxed division is one that should, I argue, be reflected in the grammar. All the examples are deviant to some degree; I provide no judgments in (2). (2) primary secondary extracted element extracted element is the binder properly contains the binder Whosei teacher did strong Whoi did hei admire most? hei admire most? crossed pronoun not embedded in an NP Hei admires everyonei. Hei admires every studenti’s professor. Whoi did hisi teacher Whosei teacher did weak admire most? hisi friend admire most? crossed pronoun embedded in an NP Hisi assistant contacted Hisi dog bit every professori. every studenti’s roommate. Weakest crossover? Lasnik and Stowell 1991 + Postal 1993 ⇒ weakest crossover is where no crossover effect exists even though the surface order might have led you to think there would be one. 1.1 Summary of Barker and Shan’s unified analysis of (2) strong = weak In derivations, his mother is (MB(his))(L(mother)), which is of the same category as he, namely, (e ∼ A) → (e B A). Hence, he and his mother interact with binders in the same way. primary Wh = secondary Wh In derivations, whose mother is (MB(BIND(whose)))(L(friend)) when whose is a binder, which is of the same category as BIND(who), namely, (e ∼ (e B A)) → (e ? A). Hence, both who and whose mother act as binders in the same way (via Q). primary quantified = secondary quantified In everyone’s mother, everyone has the same binding possibilities as everyone when it is a clausal argument. 1 Brown Workshop on Direct Compositionality, June 19–21, 2003 Comments on Barker (and Shan) 2 Disunity 2.1 Contrasting judgments (3) Wasow 1979:158: “The sentences in (7), however, demonstrate that [. ] a differentiation is necessary, for al- though weakly crossed sentences would violate a cross-over constraint, they are far less deviant that strongly crossed sentences. ((7a) is from Remembered Death by Agatha Christine, Pocket Books, p. 58; [. ]). (7a) He was the type of man with whom his work would always come first.” 2.2 Repair effects The crossover repair particles even, only, own, and emphatic reflexives can repair both kinds of weak crossover as well as secondary strong crossover. They cannot repair primary strong crossover: ∗ (4) a. the lawyer who1 his1 clients hate t1 b. the lawyer who1 (even) his1 (own) clients hate t1 ∗ (5) a. Sally is the artist [whose1 work]2 she1 has criticized t2. b. Sally is the artist [whose1 work]2 she1 herself1 has criticized t2. ∗ (6) Sally is the artist who1 they say she1 (herself) criticized. The repair effects also point up differences between overt and covert instances of crossover: (7) Postal 1993:549–550, footnote 14 Repair effects “partially undermine a view about the WCO effect that is widespread in the GB literature. This assumes that there is a genuine parallelism between say, (ia) and (ib), so that (ib) also instantiates the WCO effect [. ]. ∗ (i) a. Which man1 did his1 children dislike t1? ∗ b. His1 children dislike no/every man1. [. ] However, the parallelism breaks down when even or only is added: (iii) a. Which man1 did even/only his1 children dislike t1? ∗ b. Even/Only his1 children dislike no/every man1. This argues that the similarity between (ia) and (b) fails to represent a genuine generalization.” (8) Shan and Barker 2003:2, footnote 1: “Postal (1993) (see also the discussion in Potts 2001) points out that crossover interpretations sometimes become better if own or only is added: ?A student of hisi own advisor contacted every professori. This amelioration effect is poorly understood, and we will not discuss it further here.” 2 Brown Workshop on Direct Compositionality, June 19–21, 2003 Comments on Barker (and Shan) 3 Towards a more fine-grained theory of crossover The analysis of Shan and Barker 2003 delivers complete ungrammaticality for all crossover cases. This seems appropriate only for primary Wh- strong crossover and for the full range of covert movement cases. For the boxed parts of (2) (= Wh- secondary strong crossover and Wh- primary and secondary weak crossover), we have shades of deviance, suggesting that a less stringent account is in order. Two approaches: (9) a. We want to generate the boxed sections of (2) and explain why they sound iffy (to some) in the absence of repair items. All other kinds of crossover should be blocked. b. We want to block all of (2), and then use other mechanisms to explain (i) why the unboxed sections are perceived as worse (Shan and Barker 2003:5); and also (ii) how the repair items save the boxed parts. Since Wh- weak crossover cases appear in naturally occurring texts, and since the judgments for them have always been iffy (one finds all of ∗, ??, and ? in the literature), it might be wise to favor (9a). But the repair particles are special: (10) a. own and emphatic reflexives create de se pronouns, i.e., pronouns that appear mainly in in- direct discourse and must correspond to indexicals in direct quotation (see, e.g., Schlenker 2003:§4.1.1). b. even and only turn their focus-associates into quantifiers (see, e.g., Buring¨ and Hartmann 2001). These factors might indicate that we should block all the cases in (2), but then assign the repair particles a special semantics that lets them avoid crossover violations. How? A suggestion: Controlled W The repair particles’ categories could be lexically-controlled versions of the type-shifting rule W that enforces right-to-left evaluation instead of left-to-right evaluation (see Shan and Barker 2003:§7.1). It might prove hard to do this locally, though. One might be forced to say that a repair particles just flips us from M(ETA) to W for the whole of the derivation. That kind of condition requires a whole new style of grammar, though. Another suggestion: Another BINDer Shan and Barker (2003:22) write that Wh- primary weak crossover cases have no derivations because (11) “(BIND who) has category (e ∼ (e B A)) → (e ? A). Note that the e corresponding to the trace is outside the e corresponding to the pronoun (i.e., the ∼ connective is outside the B connective). This means that the trace must always outscope the pronoun [. ]”. Thus, we could define a second bind operator, one that flips the order of the trace and the pronoun (with no change to the semantics). This would have to be accompanied by some other adjustments to the type shifting rules: for instance, where ∼ appears in META, we would have to allow ∼ or B. In the end, this might undermine the distinguished status that pronouns have in the theory of categories. 3 Brown Workshop on Direct Compositionality, June 19–21, 2003 Comments on Barker (and Shan) But Both solutions still leave the problem of controlling the repair particles when neither the pro- noun nor the binder is embedded — i.e., we need to avoid predicting that primary strong crossover is repairable. I believe that the accounts of quantification and Wh- extraction are sufficiently different from each other that we can allow Wh- extraction some leeway without losing the ability to block all the quantified cases. In sum At a minimum, we need to distinguish who from whose mother and he from his mother in the theory of categories. Once we’ve done this, we’ll have the tools to get a grip on the contrasting intuitions that Wasow (1979) first noted. We’ll also be well positioned to understand how and where the repair particles work. References Buring,¨ Daniel and Katharina Hartmann. 2001. The syntax and semantics of focus-sensitive particles in German. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19(2):229–281. Lasnik, Howard and Tim Stowell. 1991. Weakest crossover. Linguistic Inquiry 22(4):687–720. Postal, Paul M. 1993. Remarks on weak crossover effects. Linguistic Inquiry 24(3):539–556. Potts, Christopher. 2001. (Only) some weak crossover effects repaired. Snippets 1(3). Schlenker, Philippe. 2003. A plea for monsters. Linguistics and Philosophy 26(1):29–120. Shan, Chung-chieh and Chris Barker. 2003. Explaining crossover and superiority as left-to-right evaluation, Ms., Harvard and UC San Diego. Wasow, Thomas. 1979. Anaphora in Generative Grammar. Ghent: E. Story-Scientia. 4.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Crossover Puzzle in Hindi Scrambling
    Universität Leipzig November òýÔÀ A crossover puzzle in Hindi scrambling Stefan Keine University of Southern California (presenting joint work with Rajesh Bhatt) Ô Introduction Condition C, i.e., if it does not amnesty a Condition C violation in the base position (see Lebeaux ÔÀ, òýýý, Chomsky ÔÀÀç, Sauerland ÔÀÀ, Fox ÔÀÀÀ, • Background and terminology Takahashi & Hulsey òýýÀ). Ô. Inverse linking ( ) a. *He thinks [John’s mother] is intelligent. A possessor may bind a pronoun c-commanded by its host DP (May ÔÀÞÞ, Ô Ô b. * mother thinks is intelligent. Higginbotham ÔÀý, Reinhart ÔÀç). We will refer to this phenomena as [John’sÔ ]ò heÔ ò inverse linking (see May & Bale òýýâ for an overview). • Movement-type asymmetries (Ô) a. [Everyone’sÔ mother] thinks heÔ is a genius. English A- and A-movement dier w.r.t. several of these properties: b. [No one’s mother-in-law] fully approves of her . Ô Ô (â) Weak crossover (WCO) ò. Crossover a. A-movement Crossover arises if a DP moves over a pronoun that it binds and the resulting Every boyÔ seems to hisÔ mother [ Ô to be intelligent ] structure is ungrammatical (Postal ÔÀÞÔ, Wasow ÔÀÞò). b. A-movement (ò) Strong crossover (SCO): pronoun c-commands trace *Which boyÔ did hisÔ mother say [ Ô is intelligent ]? a. *DPÔ ... pronÔ ... tÔ (Þ) Secondary strong crossover (SSCO) b. *WhoÔ does sheÔ like Ô? a. A-movement (ç) Weak crossover (WCO): pronoun does not c-command trace [ Every boy’sÔ mother ]ò seems to himÔ [ ò to be intelligent ] a. *DP ... [ ... pron ...] ... t Ô DP Ô Ô b.
    [Show full text]
  • Pronouns, Logical Variables, and Logophoricity in Abe Author(S): Hilda Koopman and Dominique Sportiche Source: Linguistic Inquiry, Vol
    MIT Press Pronouns, Logical Variables, and Logophoricity in Abe Author(s): Hilda Koopman and Dominique Sportiche Source: Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. 20, No. 4 (Autumn, 1989), pp. 555-588 Published by: MIT Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178645 Accessed: 22-10-2015 18:32 UTC Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Linguistic Inquiry. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 128.97.27.20 on Thu, 22 Oct 2015 18:32:27 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Hilda Koopman Pronouns, Logical Variables, Dominique Sportiche and Logophoricity in Abe 1. Introduction 1.1. Preliminaries In this article we describe and analyze the propertiesof the pronominalsystem of Abe, a Kwa language spoken in the Ivory Coast, which we view as part of the study of pronominalentities (that is, of possible pronominaltypes) and of pronominalsystems (that is, of the cooccurrence restrictionson pronominaltypes in a particulargrammar). Abe has two series of thirdperson pronouns. One type of pronoun(0-pronoun) has basically the same propertiesas pronouns in languageslike English. The other type of pronoun(n-pronoun) very roughly corresponds to what has been called the referential use of pronounsin English(see Evans (1980)).It is also used as what is called a logophoric pronoun-that is, a particularpronoun that occurs in special embedded contexts (the logophoric contexts) to indicate reference to "the person whose speech, thought or perceptions are reported" (Clements (1975)).
    [Show full text]
  • Publ 106271 Issue CH06 Page
    REMARKS AND REPLIES 151 Focus on Cataphora: Experiments in Context Keir Moulton Queenie Chan Tanie Cheng Chung-hye Han Kyeong-min Kim Sophie Nickel-Thompson Since Chomsky 1976, it has been claimed that focus on a referring expression blocks coreference in a cataphoric dependency (*Hisi mother loves JOHNi vs. Hisi mother LOVES Johni). In three auditory experiments and a written questionnaire, we show that this fact does not hold when a referent is unambiguously established in the discourse (cf. Williams 1997, Bianchi 2009) but does hold otherwise, validating suggestions in Rochemont 1978, Horvath 1981, and Rooth 1985. The perceived effect of prosody, we argue, building on Williams’s original insight and deliberate experimental manipulation of Rochemont’s and Horvath’s examples, is due to the fact that deaccenting the R-expres- sion allows hearers to accommodate a salient referent via a ‘‘question under discussion’’ (Roberts 1996/2012, Rooth 1996), to which the pro- noun can refer in ambiguous or impoverished contexts. This heuristic is not available in the focus cases, and we show that participants’ interpretation of the pronoun is ambivalent here. Keywords: cataphora, focus, deaccenting, question under discussion 1 Focus and Cataphora Since Chomsky 1976, it has often been repeated that backward anaphora is blocked if the ‘‘anteced- ent’’ receives focus. This is illustrated by the purported contrast in the answers to the questions in (1). These examples, and judgments, are from Bianchi 2009.1 (1) a. As for John, who does his wife really love? ?*Hisi wife loves JOHNi. b. As for John, I believe his wife hates him.
    [Show full text]
  • Weak Crossover and the Syntax-Phonology Interface
    BLS 40, 2014. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/bls.v40i0.3130 (published by the Berkeley Linguistics Society and the Linguistic Society of America) Weak Crossover and the Syntax-Phonology Interface CALIXTO AGÜERO BAUTISTA Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières1 1 Introduction Postal (1971) shows that when a wh-operator is fronted over a position containing a pronoun, the pronoun cannot be understood as a variable bound by the crossing operator. Consider the contrast in (1). (1) a. Who1 does his ?*1/2 mother love t1? b. Who1 t1 loves his1 mother? In languages like English, a subject wh-phrase cannot possibly cross over a pronoun inside an object DP, when fronted, as subjects are structurally higher than objects to begin with. Thus, in (1b) who has not crossed over the object DP containing the pronoun his. (1b) can be understood as a question about the identity of the person x, such that x loves x’s mother. In that reading of the sentence, the pronoun is undeniably interpreted as a bound variable, given that its value covaries with that of the wh-phrase. Postal’s observation is that whereas the bound variable interpretation (BVI) of the pronoun is available in examples like (1b), the pronoun cannot be so interpreted in (1a). That the BVI of the pronoun is the problem in (1a) is shown by the fact that the sentence is acceptable under a deictic interpretation of the pronoun. Postal (1971) refers to the data exemplified in (1) as crossover phenomena. Later, Wasow 1979 shows that the deviance found in crossover sentences is greater when the pronoun c- commands the gap than when it doesn’t.
    [Show full text]
  • Anaphoric R-Expressions As Bound Variables1
    Berkeley Linguistics Society . 2002. http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/bls.v28i1.3833 28 Published by the Linguistic Society of America Anaphoric R-Expressions as Bound Variables1 FELICIA LEE University ofBritish Columbia 0. The Problem San Lucas Quiavini Zapotec (SLQZ), an Otomanguean language of southern Mexico, regularly allows apparent Principle B and C violations.2 R-expressions may bind identical R-expressions (1-2) and pronouns may locally bind identical pronouns (3): (I) R-yu'laaa'z Gye'eihlly Gye'eihlly hab-like Mike Mike "Mike likes himself." (2) R-caaa'z bxuuhahz ch-iia bxuuhahz hab-want priest irr-go priest "The priest wants to go." (3) R-yu'laaa'z-eng la'anng hab-like-3s.prox 3s.prox "He/she likes himself/herself." Thai also allows apparent Principle C violations: (4) John koonnuat John John shaved John "John shaved himself." [Thai] 1 I am grateful to Rodrigo Garcia and Sugunya Ruangjaroon for providing the SLQZ and Thai data and judgments in this paper. I am also grateful to Irene Heim, Jim Huang, Pamela Munro, Tim Stowell, and audiences at UBC, University of Canterbury, and NELS 32 for their suggestions and questions on earlier stages of this project. Any remaining errors are my own. 2 This pattern was described in detail in Munro 1994. Some of the grammaticality judgments reported in this earlier work differ from those found here. 177 Felicia Lee (5) Aajarn kit waa puak rau chyyp aajarn teacher think that all we like teacher "The teacheri thinks we like himi." [Thai] 1. Proposal This paper will show that Principles B and C do indeed hold in SLQZ and Thai.
    [Show full text]
  • Donkey Anaphora Is In-Scope Binding∗
    Semantics & Pragmatics Volume 1, Article 1: 1–46, 2008 doi: 10.3765/sp.1.1 Donkey anaphora is in-scope binding∗ Chris Barker Chung-chieh Shan New York University Rutgers University Received 2008-01-06 = First Decision 2008-02-29 = Revised 2008-03-23 = Second Decision 2008-03-25 = Revised 2008-03-27 = Accepted 2008-03-27 = Published 2008- 06-09 Abstract We propose that the antecedent of a donkey pronoun takes scope over and binds the donkey pronoun, just like any other quantificational antecedent would bind a pronoun. We flesh out this idea in a grammar that compositionally derives the truth conditions of donkey sentences containing conditionals and relative clauses, including those involving modals and proportional quantifiers. For example, an indefinite in the antecedent of a conditional can bind a donkey pronoun in the consequent by taking scope over the entire conditional. Our grammar manages continuations using three independently motivated type-shifters, Lift, Lower, and Bind. Empirical support comes from donkey weak crossover (*He beats it if a farmer owns a donkey): in our system, a quantificational binder need not c-command a pronoun that it binds, but must be evaluated before it, so that donkey weak crossover is just a special case of weak crossover. We compare our approach to situation-based E-type pronoun analyses, as well as to dynamic accounts such as Dynamic Predicate Logic. A new ‘tower’ notation makes derivations considerably easier to follow and manipulate than some previous grammars based on continuations. Keywords: donkey anaphora, continuations, E-type pronoun, type-shifting, scope, quantification, binding, dynamic semantics, weak crossover, donkey pronoun, variable-free, direct compositionality, D-type pronoun, conditionals, situation se- mantics, c-command, dynamic predicate logic, donkey weak crossover ∗ Thanks to substantial input from Anna Chernilovskaya, Brady Clark, Paul Elbourne, Makoto Kanazawa, Chris Kennedy, Thomas Leu, Floris Roelofsen, Daniel Rothschild, Anna Szabolcsi, Eytan Zweig, and three anonymous referees.
    [Show full text]
  • Team Weak Crossover Calixto Agu¨Ero-Bautista
    Team Weak Crossover Calixto Agu¨ero-Bautista It is generally assumed that the weak crossover (WCO) effect arises when an operator fails to bind a pronoun that stands in a particular syntactic configuration with the given operator. In this article, I intro- duce a new kind of crossover effect in which the binding dependencies of two different operators work in tandem to yield the given effect. The new effect is radically different from the traditional crossover cases, which involve the binding dependency of just one operator. I show that theories that define the WCO principle as a condition regulat- ing the binding of pronouns cannot account for the new effect. I also show that to account for all the varieties of crossover effects, the WCO principle must be defined as a condition regulating the semantic relation of dependence and must make use of the notion of Spell-Out domain discussed by Chomsky (2001, 2004). Keywords: weak crossover, binding, crossover, multiple cycles, pro- noun, dependence, phase 1 Introduction It seems to be a fact of natural language that an operator cannot felicitously bind a given variable if it has to ‘‘cross over’’ it on its way to its scope position. The examples in (1)–(2) illustrate this fact. (1) a. *Whoi does hei love ti? b. *Hei loves every studenti. (2) a. *?Whoi does hisi mother love ti? b. *?Hisi mother loves every studenti. The deviance of (1a–b), under the intended interpretation, is stronger than that of (2a–b). After Postal (1971) and Wasow (1979), researchers have used the terms strong crossover (SCO) and weak crossover (WCO) to refer to the phenomena in (1) and (2), respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Remarks on Weak Crossover Effects Author(S): Paul M
    Remarks on Weak Crossover Effects Author(s): Paul M. Postal Reviewed work(s): Source: Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. 24, No. 3 (Summer, 1993), pp. 539-556 Published by: The MIT Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178826 . Accessed: 14/11/2012 14:20 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. The MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Linguistic Inquiry. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.232 on Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:20:07 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions REMARKS AND REPLIES 539 (O'Neil) 20D-213 Department of Linguistics and Philosophy MIT Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 [email protected] (Vergnaud) Department of Linguistics University of Southern California Los Angeles, California 90089 Remarks on Weak Crossover Effects Paul M. Postal 1 Background Lasnik and Stowell (1991) (hereafter:LS) make importantsuggestions about the factors determiningthe weak crossover (hereafter: WCO) effect. According to LS, a widely accepted descriptive generalizationconcerning this effect is (1) (= LS's (14)). (1) In a configurationwhere a pronoun P and a trace T are both bound by a quan- tifier Q, T must c-commandP.
    [Show full text]
  • REVIEWS Possession and Ownership
    REVIEWS Possession and ownership: A cross-linguistic typology. Ed. by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon . (Explorations in linguistic typology.) Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Pp. xxii, 319. ISBN 9780199660223. $125 (Hb). Reviewed by Lars Johanson , Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz This collection of essays about possession and ownership aims at combining linguistic and an - thropological concepts concerning the relation between language, culture, and modes of thinking, particularly the ways in which culture and cognition are manifested in grammar. Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald’s opening essay, ‘Possession and ownership: A cross-linguistic perspective’, is a lucid introduction that defines, explains, and exemplifies all conceivable aspects of the topic. Chs. 2–11 address the ways that linguistic structures reflect cultural patterns, attitudes toward possession, and effects of change. Isabelle Bril analyzes the complex system of ownership re - lations in the Oceanic language Nêlêmwa of New Caledonia. Gloria J. Gravelle investigates patterns of possession in Moskona, an East Bird’s Head language of West Papua, Indonesia. Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald deals with possession and ownership in Manambu, a Ndu language of the Sepik area of Papua New Guinea. Alan Dench analyzes possession in Martuthunira, once spoken in the Pilbara region of Western Australia. Lev Michael discusses Nanti, spoken in Peru, in the context of other Arawak languages. Mark W. Post deals with possession and association in the Tibeto-Burman Galo language and its culture. Yongxian Luo examines possessive con - structions in Mandarin Chinese. Anne Storch studies possession in Hone, a Jukonoid language Felix K. Ameka of Nigeria. deals with possessive constructions in Likpe (S ɛkp ɛlé), a Kwa lan - guage of Ghana.
    [Show full text]
  • UC Berkeley Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society
    UC Berkeley Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society Title Weak Crossover and the Syntax-Phonology Interface Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/51f5h9t3 Journal Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 40(40) ISSN 2377-1666 Author Agüero Bautista, Calixto Publication Date 2014 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California PROCEEDINGS OF THE FORTIETH ANNUAL MEETING OF THE BERKELEY LINGUISTICS SOCIETY February 7-9, 2014 General Session Special Session Approaches to the Syntax-Phonology Interface Parasessions Semantic Theory in Underdescribed Languages Language, Inequality, and Globalization Editors Herman Leung Zachary O'Hagan Sarah Bakst Auburn Lutzross Jonathan Manker Nicholas Rolle Katie Sardinha Berkeley Linguistics Society Berkeley, CA, USA Berkeley Linguistics Society University of California, Berkeley Department of Linguistics 1203 Dwinelle Hall Berkeley, CA 94720-2650 USA All papers copyright c 2014 by the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Inc. All rights reserved. ISSN: 0363-2946 LCCN: 76-640143 Contents Acknowledgments v Foreword vii Weak Crossover and the Syntax-Phonology Interface Calixto Ag¨ueroBautista . 1 Irrealis as verbal non-specificity in Koro (Oceanic) Jessica Cleary-Kemp . 20 Subjectification in the Development of Clitic Doubling: A Diachronic Study of Romanian and Spanish Oana A. David . 42 Reportativity, (not-)at-issueness, and assertion Martina Faller . 62 When Phonology Undergenerates: Evidence from Asturian Enclitic Structures Francisco J. Fern´andez-Rubiera. 85 Contour Tones and Prosodic Structure in Med0mba Kathryn H. Franich . 102 Asymmetric Correlations between English Verb Transitivity and Stress Michelle A. Fullwood . 125 Micro-Variation within Bizkaiera Basque: Evidence from RCs Ager Gondra .
    [Show full text]
  • Explaining Crossover and Superiority As Left-To-Right Evaluation
    EXPLAINING CROSSOVER AND SUPERIORITY AS LEFT-TO-RIGHT EVALUATION CHUNG-CHIEH SHAN AND CHRIS BARKER Abstract. We present a general theory of scope and binding in which both crossover and superiority violations are ruled out by one key assumption: that natural language expres- sions are uniformly evaluated (processed) from left to right. Our theory is an extension of Shan's (2002) account of multiple-wh questions, combining continuations (Barker 2002a) and dynamic type-shifting. Like other continuation-based analyses, but unlike most other treatments of crossover or superiority, our new analysis does not postulate a level of Logical Form or other representation distinct from surface syntax. One advantage of using contin- uations is that order-of-evaluation for programming languages is standardly modeled using continuations; that work provides us with a natural and independently-motivated character- ization of what it means to evaluate expressions from left to right. We give a combinatory categorial grammar that models the syntax and the semantics of quantifier scope and wh- question formation. It allows quantificational binding but not crossover, in-situ wh but not superiority violations. 1. Crossover as a Processing Constraint Typically, a quantifier must precede a pronoun in order to bind it. Thus (1a) can mean that each person loves their own mother, but (1b) cannot analogously mean that each per- son's mother loves them. (1) a. Everyonei loves hisi mother. b. *Hisi mother loves everyonei. At first glance, a processing explanation seems promising: if humans process sentences from left to right, then arriving at the ungrammatical crossover interpretation in (1b) would require postponing the interpretation of the pronoun until encountering the quantifier that binds it.
    [Show full text]
  • An Implicature-Based Approach to Disjointness Effects*
    Proceedings of SALT 28: 366–387, 2018 An Implicature-Based Approach to Disjointness Effects* Paul Marty ZAS, Berlin Abstract The generation and distribution of disjointness effects raise a descrip- tive and explanatory challenge to linguistic theories: what are the conditions un- der which these effects arise and why do these effects arise in the first place? In this paper, I flesh out an account of these effects that takes up both these chal- lenges at once in showing that these effects are derivable from current approaches to implicature-reasoning. In substance, it is argued that these effects follow from a genuine implicature-based reasoning whose outcome may, upon certain contextual pressures, result in conflicting representations, giving rise then to oddity effects. The account is shown to unify various disjointness effects under one roof and to explain the source of some of the classical conditions on co-reference and binding. Keywords: disjointness effects, co-reference, variable binding, structural competition, scalar implicatures, relevance, oddness, blindness, exhaustivity operator 1 Disjointness Effects This paper is concerned with a set of well-known interpretative phenomena whereby two nominal expressions, whose interpretation could a priori co-refer or co-vary, end up being interpreted as disjoint.1 Phenomenally, these interpretative effects, known as disjointness effects, manifest themselves in two noticeable ways. First, in run-of-the-mill contexts, we observe in examples like (1) that certain identity relations between different nominals, occurring or not in the same sentence, are spontaneously ruled out by speakers. * This paper includes and extends some of the ideas and materials originally presented in Chapter 5 of my doctoral dissertation, Implicatures in the DP domain.
    [Show full text]