Intervention Effects Revisited

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


I investigate the claim that some of the semantic properties that Qs intrinsically display have an important impact on their external syntax. In order to do so, I consider intervention effects in more detail. Universal Quantifiers (∀Qs) (positive and negative) are used as (potential) interveners, while wh-phrases in-situ and un N are the (potential) moving elements. I show that the scope possibilities of these latter Qs with respect to ∀Qs as well as to negation call for an analysis in terms of locality.


Noun Phrase Wide Scope Narrow Scope Relativize Minimality Matrix Clause 
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.


  1. 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
  2. Baunaz, Lena and Andrea Cattaneo. 2005. Personne ‘nobody’: An instance of universal quantification. G@G 4:47–92.Google Scholar
  3. Baunaz, Lena and Genoveva Puskás. 2008. Feature stripping and wh-movement in French and Hungarian. In Selected Proceedings of the 34th Incontro di Grammatica Generativa. Paola Benincą, Federico Damonte and Nicoletta Penello (eds.). Padova: Unipress Special Issue of the Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 33:43–60.Google Scholar
  4. 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. E. Delais-Roussarie, H.-Y. Yoo, L. de Saussure and A. Rihs (eds.), Etudes de sé mantique et pragmatique françaises. Berne: Lang.Google Scholar
  5. Beck, Sigrid. 1996. Quantified structures as barriers for LF-movement. Natural Language Semantics 4:1–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beghelli, Fillipo and Tim Stowell. 1997. Distributivity and negation: The syntax of each and every. In Ways of Scope Taking, Anna Szabolcsi (ed.), 71–108. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chang, Lisa. 1997. Wh-in situ in French. MA thesis, University of British Colombia.Google Scholar
  8. Cheng, Lisa and Johann Rooryck. 2000. Licensing wh-in-situ. Syntax 3(1):1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1990. Types of A Bar-Dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, Linguistic Inquiry Monograph.Google Scholar
  10. Enç, Mürvet. 1991. The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22:1–25Google Scholar
  11. Huang, James. 1982. Move WH in a language without WH movement. The Linguistic Review 1:369–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ihsane, Tabea 2008. The Layered DP. Form and Meaning of French Indefinites Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 124. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  13. Mathieu, Eric. 2002. The Syntax of Non-Canonical Quantification: A Comparative Study. Doctoral dissertation, University College London.Google Scholar
  14. Mathieu, Eric. 2004. The mapping of form and interpretation: The case of optional wh-movement in French. Lingua 114:1090–1132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Obenauer, Hans-Georg. 1983. Une Quantification Non-Canonique: La Quantification à Distance. Langue Français 58:66–88.Google Scholar
  16. Obenauer, Hans-Georg. 1992. L’interprétation des structures-wh et l’accord du partiticipe passé. In Structure de la Phrase et Théorie du Liage, Hans-Georg Obenauer and Anne Zribi-Hertz (eds.), 169–195. Saint-Denis: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes.Google Scholar
  17. Obenauer, Hans-Georg. 1994. Aspects de la Syntaxe A-Barre. Thèse de Doctorat d’Etat, Université de Paris VIII.Google Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Puskás, Genoveva. 2000. Quantification in the left periphery: A syntactic argument for ‘split’ domains. In CLS 36, Volume 1: The Main Session, John Boyle, Jung-Huyck Lee and Arika Okrent (eds.). Chicago Linguistic Society: Chicago.Google Scholar
  20. Puskás, Genoveva. 2002. Floating quantifiers: What they can tell us about the syntax and semantics of quantifiers. GG@G 3:105–128.Google Scholar
  21. Reinhart, Tanya. 1997. Quantifier scope. How labour is divided between QR and choice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy 20:335–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Rizzi, L. 2002. Locality and left periphery. In Structures and Beyond. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 3. Adriana Belletti (ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. de Swart, Henriette. 1992. Intervention effects, monotonicity and scope. Proceedings of SALT, vol. 2, 387–406. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Szabolcsi, Anna. 2005. Strong and weak islands. In The Syntax Companion, Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  26. Starke, Michal. 2001. Move Dissolves into Merge: A Theory of Locality. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Geneva.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of GenevaGenevaSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations