Abstract
Alternative questions exhibit intervention effects, in that the disjunctive phrase may not be c-commanded by a focusing or quantificational element. This seems to hold crosslinguistically. We provide an analysis of this phenomenon that combines a focus semantic explanation of intervention effects in questions with an analysis of alternative questions in which the disjunctive phrase makes available appropriate alternatives in a way similar to a wh-phrase. We point out consequences for the analysis of intervention as well as for the analysis of alternative questions. We also note interesting further issues pertaining to the semantic contribution of dis- junction.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Aloni, M. (2003). Free choice in modal contexts. In M. Weisgerber (Ed.), Proceedings of Sinn & Bedeutung(Vol. 7, pp. 25–37). available at:http://ling.uni-konstanz.de/pages/conferences/sub7/.
Bartels C. (1999). The intonation of english statements and questions. New York, Garland Publishing
Beck, S. (1996). Wh-constructions and transparent logical form. PhD dissertation, Universität Tüb-ingen, available at: http://www2.sfs.nphil.uni-tuebingen.de/Alumni/Dissertationen/beck.pdf.
Beck S. (2006). Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics.14, 1–56
Beck S., Kim S.-S. (1997). On Wh- and operator scope in korean. Journal of East Asian Lin- guistics, 6, 339–384
Groenendijk J., Stokhof M. (1984). Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. University of Amsterdam, Academisch Proefschrift
Guerzoni, E. (to appear). Intervention effects on npis and feature movement: Towards a unified account of intervention. ms., MIT.
Gullì, A. (2003). Phrasal reduplication in syntax, PhD dissertation, CUNY Graduate Center.
Hagstrom, P. (1998). Decomposing questions. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Hamblin C.L. (1973). Questions in montague english. Foundations of Language 10, 41–53
Han, C.-H. Romero, M. (2001). Negation, focus and alternative questions. In Proceedings of the 20th West Coast conference on formal linguistics, (pp. 262–275).
Han C.-H., Romero M. (2004a). Disjunction, focus and scope. Linguistic Inquiry. 35, 179–217
Han, C.-H., Romero, M. (2004b). The syntax of whether/Q...or questions: Ellipsis combined with movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 22, 527–564.
Heim, I. (1987). Where does the definiteness restriction apply? Evidence from the definiteness of variables. In E. Reuland, A. G. B. ter Meulen (Eds.), The representation of (In)definiteness, (pp. 21–42). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Hendriks, P. (2003). "Either" as a focus particle, ms., University of Groningen.
Herburger E. (1993). Focus and the LF of NP quantification. Proceedings of SALT. 3, 77–96
Huang, C.-T. J. (1982). Logical relations in chinese and the theory of grammar. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Karttunen L. (1977). Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1, 3–44
Kim, S.-S. (2002). Focus matters: Two types of intervention effect. Paper presented at WCCFL 21, UC Santa Cruz.
Kratzer, A., Shimoyama, J. (2002). Indeterminate pronouns: The view from Japanese. Available at http://semanticsarchive.net
Krifka M. (1990). Four thousand ships passed through the lock: Object-induced measure functions on events. Linguistics and Philosophy, 13, 487–520
Larson R.K. (1985). On the syntax of disjunction scope. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. 3, 217–264
Liptá k, A.: (2001). On the syntax of Wh-items in Hungarian. PhD dissertation, University of Leiden. Lutz, U. Müller, G. von Stechow, A. (Eds.): (2000). Wh-scope marking. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
May R. (1985). Logical form: Its structure and derivation. Cambridge, MIT Press
Pesetsky D. (2000). Phrasal movement and its kin. Cambridge, MIT Press
Reinhart T. (1998). Wh-in-situ in the framework of the Minimalilst program. Natural Language Semantics. 6, 29–56
Rizzi L. (1990). Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MIT Press
Rizzi, L. (2001). Relativized minimality effects. In M. Baltin,, C. Collins (Eds.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory. (pp. 89–110). Oxford: Blackwell.
Rodman, R. (1976). Scope phenomena, "movement transformations", and relative clauses. In B. Partee (Ed.),Montague grammar.(pp. 165–176). New York: Academic Press.
Romero, M. Han, C.-H. (2003). Focus, ellipsis and the semantics of alternative questions. In C. Beyssade, O. Bonami, P. C. Hofherr,& F. Corblin (Eds.), Empirical issues in formal syntax and semantics (Vol. 4, pp. 291–307). Paris: Presses Universitaires de Paris-Sorbonne.
Rooth, M. (1985). Association with focus. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Rooth M. (1992). A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics. 1, 75–116
Rooth, M. (1996). Focus, In S. Lappin (Ed.), The handbook of contemporary semantic theory, (pp. 272–297). Oxford: Blackwell.
Sauerland, U., Heck, F. (2003). LF intervention effects in Pied-Piping. In M. Kadowaki S. Kawahara (Eds.), Proceedings of NELS (Vol. 33, pp. 347–366). University of Massachusetts, Amherst: GLSA.
Schwarz, B. (1993). Gewisse Fragesätze und gewisse Verben, die sie einbetten. Ms., Universität Tübingen
Schwarz, B. (1999). On the Syntax of either ... or. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 17, 339–370.
Shimoyama, J. (2001). Wh-constructions in Japanese. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Simons, M. (2004). Dividing things up: The semantics of or and the modal/or interaction. Paper presented at NELS 35, University of Connecticut.
von Stechow, A. (1991). Focusing and backgrounding operators. In W. Abraham (ed.), Discourse particles. (pp. 37–84). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Zimmermann T.E. (2000). Free choice disjunction and epistemic possibility. Natural Language Semantics 8, 255–290
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Beck, S., Kim, SS. Intervention Effects in Alternative Questions. J Comp German Linguistics 9, 165–208 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10828-006-9005-2
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10828-006-9005-2