Advertisement

Split-DPs

  • Lena Baunaz
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory book series (SNLT, volume 83)

Abstract

I discuss two apparently distinct quantifiers (Qs): wh-phrases and existential Qs (∃Qs). I provide syntactic, semantic and prosodic distinctions among wh-phrases on the one hand, and among ∃Qs on the other. I argue that each type of Q (wh and ∃) involves three distinct instances of the same segmental representation: qui ‘who’ has three different instances, un N ‘a N’ has also three different instances of un N. Each instance of qui corresponds to each instance of un N: a fall-rise (specific) Q, a downfall (partitive) Q and a neutral/rising (non-presuppositional) Q. Based on this empirical parallelism, I argue that each Qs is composed of an indefinite and an Operator and might display a Split-DP structure.

Keywords

Noun Phrase Past Participle Discourse Referent Contrastive Focus Familiar Individual 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Aboh, Enoch. 2001. Morphosyntaxe de la périphérie gauche nominale. Presented at the Conference La syntaxe de la definitude, Université de Paris 8, Feb. 8–9.Google Scholar
  2. Abusch, Dorit. 1994. The scope of indefinites. Natural Language Semantics 2:83–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adli, Aria. 2006. French wh-in-situ questions and syntactic optionality: Evidence from tree data types. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 25:163–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aoun, Joseph. and Yen-Hui Audrey Li. 1991. The interaction of operators. In Principles and Parametes of Comparative Grammar, R. Freidin (ed.), 163–181. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Aoun, Joseph and Yen-Hui Audrey Li. 1993. Wh-elements in situ: Syntax or LF? Linguistic Inquiry 24(2):199–238.Google Scholar
  6. Baunaz, Lena. 2005. The syntax and semantics of wh in-situ and existentials: The case of French. Leiden Working Papers in Linguistics 2.2. 1–27.Google Scholar
  7. Baunaz, Lena and Cédric Patin. 2009. Prosody refers to semantic factors: Evidence from French wh-words, talk given at the Interface Discourse-Prosody Conference in Paris 7, September 11th 2009. To be published in Proceedings of IDP, Elisabeth Delais-Roussarie, Hi-Yon Yoo, L. de Saussure and A. Rihs (eds.), Etudes de sémantique et pragmatique françaises. Berne: Lang.Google Scholar
  8. Baunaz, Lena and Genoveva Puskás. 2008. Feature stripping and wh-movement in French and Hungarian. In Selected Proceedings of the 34^th Incontro di Grammatica Generativa, Paola Benincą, Federico Damonte and Nicoletta Penello (eds.), Padova: Unipress Special Issue of the Rivista di Grammatica Generativa, vol. 33:43–60.Google Scholar
  9. Beck, Sigrid. 1996. Quantified structures as barriers for LF-movement. Natural Language Semantics 4:1–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Beghelli, Fillipo. 1995. The Phrase Structure of Quantifier Scope. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  11. Boeckx, Cédric. 1999. Decomposing French Questions. In University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguisitics 6.1, Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium, J. Alexander, N.R. Han and M. Minnick Fox (eds.), 69–80. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  12. Boeckx, Cédric. 2003. French Wh-in-situ Interrogatives as (C)overt Clefts, ms. Harvard University.Google Scholar
  13. Bošković, Zeljiko. 1998. LF Movement and the Minimalist Program. In NELS 28. GLSA, P.N. Tamanji and K. Kusomoto (eds.), 43–57. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  14. Bošković, Zeljiko. 2000. Sometimes in SpecCP, sometimes in-situ. In Step by Step: Essays on Minimalism in Honor of Howard Lasnik, Roger Martin, David Michaels and Juan Uriagereka (eds.), 53–87. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Butler, Alastair and Eric Mathieu. 2005. Split-DPs, generalized EPP and visibility. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, Martha McGinnis and Norvin Richards (eds.), 49–57. MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  16. Cable, Seth. 2008. Question particles and the nature of wh-fronting. In Quantification: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. North Holland Linguistic Series: Linguistic Variations Volume 64. Matthewson, Lisa (ed.), Bingley, UK: Emerald.Google Scholar
  17. Cardinaletti, Anna and Michal Starke. 1999. The typology of structural deficiency. In Clitics in the Languages of Europe, Henk van Reimsdijk (ed.), 145–233. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  18. Chang, Lisa. 1997. Wh-in situ in French. MA thesis, University of British Colombia.Google Scholar
  19. Cheng, Lisa. 1991. On the Typology of Wh-questions. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Distributed by MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
  20. Cheng, Lisa and Johann Rooryck. 2000. Licensing wh-in-situ. Syntax 3(1):1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Choe, Jae-Woong. 1987. Anti-Quantifiers and a Theory of Distributivity. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  22. Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On wh-movement. In Formal Syntax, Peter. W Culicover, Tom Wasow and Adrian Akmajian (eds.), San Francisco, London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  23. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1990. Types of A Bar-dependencies. Cambridge, MA:: MIT Press, Linguistic Inquiry Monograph.Google Scholar
  24. Davidson, Donald. 1980. Essays on Actions and Events. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  25. Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 1996. Syntactic Configurations and References: SE/SI in Romance. In Grammatical Theory and Romance Languages, Karen Zagona (ed.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  26. Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen and Claire Beyssade. 2004. Définir les Indéfinis. Coll.Sciences du Langage. Paris: Éditions CNRS.Google Scholar
  27. Doetjes, Jenny, Georges Rebuschi and Annie Rialland. 2004. Cleft sentences. In Handbook of French Semantics, Francis Corblin and Henriette de Swart (eds.). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  28. Enç, Mürvet. 1991. The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22:1–25.Google Scholar
  29. Etxepare, Ricardo and Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria. 2002. Wh-movement in Spanish: The right side of it. Talk given in Leiden, December 12, 2002.Google Scholar
  30. Farkas, Donka. 1994. Specificity and scope. In Langues et Grammaires 1, Lea Nash and George Tsoulas (eds.), 119–137. Université Paris 8.Google Scholar
  31. Fitzpatrick, Justin Michael. 2006. Syntactic and Semantic Routes to Floating Quantification. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  32. Fodor, Jerry and Ivan Sag. 1982. Referential and quantificational indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 5:355–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Fox, Danny. 1999. Reconstruction, binding theory, and the interpretation of chains. Linguistic Inquiry 30:157–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Giusti, Giuliana. 1991. The categorial status of quantified nominals. Linguistische Berichte 136:438–452.Google Scholar
  35. Giusti, Giuliana. 1997. The categorial status of determiners. In The New Comparative Syntax, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 95–123. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  36. Giusti, Giuliana. 2005. At the left periphery of the Romanian noun phrase. In On space and Time in Language, Martine Coene and Liliane Tasmowski (eds.). Cluj: Clusium.Google Scholar
  37. Godard, Danièle. 2004. French negative dependency. In Handbook of French Semantics, F. Corblin and H. de Swart (eds.), 351–389. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
  38. Gravier, G., J.-F. Bonastre, E. Geoffrois, S. Galliano, K. McTait and K. Choukri. 2004. ESTER, une campagne d’évaluation des systèmes d’indexation automatique d’émissions radiophoniques en français. In Actes de JEP-TALN 2004. Fès, MarocGoogle Scholar
  39. Grohmann, Kleanthes. 1998. Syntactic inquiries into discourse restrictions on multiple interrogatives. Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik 42:1–60.Google Scholar
  40. Hagstrom, Paul. 1998. Decomposing Questions. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Distributed by MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
  41. Hagstrom, Paul. 1999. The movement of question particles. In Proceedings of NELS 30, M. Hirotani, A. Coetzee, N. Hall and Y. Kim (eds.), Amhest, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
  42. Hagstrom, Paul. 2001. Particle movement in Sinhala and Japanese. In Clause Structure in South Asian Languages, Veneeta Dayal and Anoop Mahjan (eds.). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  43. Heim, Irene. 1982. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  44. Heim, Irene and Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  45. Heycock, Caroline. 1995. Asymmetries in reconstruction. Linguistic Inquiry 26:547–570.Google Scholar
  46. Hoji, Hajime. 1985. Logical form Constraints and Configurational Structures in Japanese. Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington.Google Scholar
  47. Huang, James. 1982. Move WH in a language without WH movement. The Linguistic Review 1:369–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ihsane, Tabea. 2006. The Construction of the DP Domain: From /un/-NPs and /du/des-/NPs in French to Bare Nouns in Romance and Germanic. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Geneva.Google Scholar
  49. Ihsane, Tabea. 2008. The Layered DP. Form and Meaning of French Indefinites. Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 124. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  50. Jayez, Jacques and Lucia Tovena. 2005. Free choiceness and non-individuation. Linguistics and Philosophy 28:1–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Jiménez, Maria-Luisa. 1997. Semantic and Pragmatic Conditions on Word-Order in Spanish. Ph.D. dissertation, Georgetown University.Google Scholar
  52. Junker, Marie-Odile. 1995. Syntax et sémantique des quantifieurs flottants tous et chacun. Distributivité en sémantique conceptuelle. Genève: Librairie Droz.Google Scholar
  53. Kamp, Hans. 1981. A theory of truth and discourse representation. In Formal Methods in the Study of Language, Jeroen Groenendijk, Theo Janssen and Martin Stokhof (eds.). Amsterdam: Mathematical Centre.Google Scholar
  54. Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antsymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  55. É. Kiss, Katalin. 1998. Informational focus vs. identificational focus. Language 74:245–273.Google Scholar
  56. Koopman, Hilda. 1984. The Syntax of Verbs: From Verb Movement Rules in the Kru Languages to Universal Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris Publication.Google Scholar
  57. Kratzer, Angelika. 1995. Stage-level and individual-level predicates. In The Generic Book, Gregory N. Carlson and Francis J. Pelletier (eds.), 125–175. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  58. Kratzer, Angelica. 1998. Scope or Pseudoscope? Are there wide-scope indefinites? In Events and Grammar, S. Rothstein (ed.). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  59. Laenzlinger, Christopher. 2005. Some notes on DP-internal movement. GG@G 4, 227–260.Google Scholar
  60. Lasnik, Howard and Tim Stowell. 1991. Weakest crossover. Linguistic Inquiry 22, 687–720.Google Scholar
  61. Lipták, Aniko. 2001. On the Syntax of Wh-items in Hungarian. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Leiden.Google Scholar
  62. Longobardi, Giuseppe. 1994. Reference and proper names: A theory of N-movement in syntax and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry 25:609–665.Google Scholar
  63. Mathieu, Eric. 1999. Wh in-situ and the intervention effect. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 11: 441–472Google Scholar
  64. Mathieu, Eric. 2002. The Syntax of Non-Canonical Quantification: A Comparative Study. Doctoral dissertation, University College London.Google Scholar
  65. Mathieu, Eric. 2004a. The mapping of form and interpretation: The case of optional wh-movement in French. Lingua 114:1090–1132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Mathieu, Eric. 2004b. Review of Carmen Dobrovie-Sorin et Claire Beyssade, Définir les indéfinis, in http://aix1.uottawa.ca/~emathieu/Dobrovie_Beyssade.pdf.
  67. May, Robert. 1985. Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  68. McNally, Louise. 1995. Bare plurals in Spanish are interpreted as properties. In Proceedings of the 1995 ESSLLI Conference on Formal Grammar, G. Morrill and R. Oehrle (eds.), Republished in 2004, Catalan Journal of Linguistics 3:115–133.Google Scholar
  69. Milsark, Gary. 1974. Existential Sentences in English. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, published in 1979. New York-London: Garland.Google Scholar
  70. Milsark, Gary. 1977. Toward an explanation of certain peculiarities of the existential construction in English. Linguistic Analysis 18:85–109.Google Scholar
  71. Obenauer, Hans-Georg. 1983. Une Quantification Non-Canonique: La Quantification à Distance. Langue Française 58:66–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Obenauer, Hans-Georg. 1984. On the identification of empty categories. The Linguistic Review 4:153–202.Google Scholar
  73. Obenauer, Hans-Georg. 1994. Aspects de la Syntaxe A-Barre. Thèse de Doctorat d’Etat, Université de Paris VIII.Google Scholar
  74. Partee, Barbara H. 1986. Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. In Studies in Discourse Representation Theory and the Theory of Generalized Quantifiers, Jeroen Groenendijk, Dick de Jongh and Martin Stokhof (eds.), 115–143. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  75. Pesetsky, David. 1987. Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding. In The Representation of (In)definites, Eric Reuland and Alice ter Meulen (eds.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  76. Pesetsky, David. 1998/2000. Phrasal Movement and Its Kin. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  77. Poletto, Cecilia and Jean-Yves Pollock. 2004. On the left periphery of some Romance WH-questions. In The Structure of IP and CP. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Volume 2. Luigi Rizzi (ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Postal, Paul. 1971. Cross-Over Phenomena. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
  79. Reinhart, Tanya. 1997. Quantifier scope. How labour is divided between QR and choice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy 20:335–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Rialland, Annie, Jenny Doetjes and Georges Rebuschi. 2002. What is Focused in C’est XP qui/que Cleft Sentences in French? Talk given in Aix-en-Provence, April 2002.Google Scholar
  81. Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  82. Rizzi, L. 2002. Locality and left periphery. In Structures and Beyond. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Volume 3. Adriana Belletti (ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  83. Rooryck, Johan. 1994. On two types of underspecification: towards a feature theory shared by syntax and phonology. Probus 6:207–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Ross, John R. 1967. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  85. Ruys, Eddy. 1992. The Scope of Indefinites. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
  86. Starke, Michal. 2001. Move Dissolves into Merge: A Theory of Locality. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Geneva.Google Scholar
  87. Spector, Benjamin. 2006. Aspects de la pragmatique des opérateurs logiques. Doctorat de sciences du langage (Université Paris 7).Google Scholar
  88. Svenonius, Peter. 1998, Clefts in Scandinavian. In ZAS Working Papers 10:163–190, Berlin, Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
  89. de Swart, Henriette. 1992. Intervention effects, monotonicity and scope. Proceedings of SALT vol. 2, 387–406. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
  90. Szabolcsi, Anna. 1997. Strategies for scope taking. In Ways of Scope Taking, Anna Szabolcsi (ed.). Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Szabolcsi, Anna and Marcel den Dikken. 2003. Islands. In The Second State-of-the-Article Book, Lisa Cheng and Rint Sybesma (eds.). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  92. Tanaka, Hidekazu. 1999. LF wh-islands and the minimal scope principle. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17:371–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Tsai, Chih-Hao. 1994. Effects of Semantic Transparency on the Recognition of Chinese Two-Character Words: Evidence for a Dual-Process Model. Unpublished Master’s thesis, National Chung-Cheng University, Chia-Yi, Taiwan.Google Scholar
  94. Tellier, Christine. 1991. Licensing Theory and French Parasitic Gaps. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Uribe-Etxebarria, Myriam. 2001. A review of Jiménez (1997). GLOT International 5:6.Google Scholar
  96. Van Geenhoven, Veerle. 1996. Semantic Incorporation and Indefinite Descriptions: Semantic and Syntactic Aspects of Noun Incorporation in West Greenlandic. Ph.D. dissertation, Tubingen.Google Scholar
  97. Wasow, Thomas. 1972. Anaphoric Relations in English. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  98. Watanabe, Akira. 1992. Subjacency and S-structure movement of wh-in-situ. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1:255–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Watanabe, Akira. 2001. Wh-in-situ languages. In The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, Mark Baltin and Chris Collins (eds.), 203–225. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Zabbal, Youri. 2003. The Semantics of the French Indeterminate Expression ‘N’Importe’. MIT/UConn/UMass/Brown Semantics Workshop. October 25, 2003. University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  101. Zamparelli, Roberto. 2000. Layers in the Determiner Phrase. New York, NY: Garland.Google Scholar
  102. Zubizarreta, Maria-Luisa. 2003. Intervention effects in the French wh-in-situ construction: Syntax or Interpretation? In A Romance Perspective in Language Knowledge and Use. Selected Papers from the 31st Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, Rafael Nuñez-Cedeño, Luis López and Richard Camero (eds.). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of GenevaGenevaSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations