Advertisement

Conclusion

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

Abstract

In this book, I have shown that apparent scope/lexical ambiguities are dependant on the utterance context and can be (partially) resolved via intonation in French. One of the results reached is the correlation between syntactic positions and semantic denotations, corroborating recent works on the matter (Ihsane 2008, a.o) and suggesting strict syntax-semantics mapping. In addition to semantics and syntax, prosody is taken as a diagnostic discriminating specificity from partitivity and non-presupposition with wh-phrases in-situ and existential un Ns (∃Qs). Prosody does not play a role in the existential interpretation of ∀Qs and N-words, which discriminate their existential meaning lexically.

Keywords

Noun Phrase Syntactic Structure Language Faculty Semantic Denotation Pitch Accent 
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. Adli, Aria. 2006. French wh-in-situ questions and syntactic optionality: Evidence from tree data types. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 25:163–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Baunaz, Lena. 2008. Floating quantifiers: french universal quantifiers and N-words. In Selected Proceedings of the 34th Incontro di Grammatica Generativa, Special Issue of the Rivista di Grammatica Generativa, vol. 33. P. Beninca˛, F. Damonte and N. Penello (eds.). Padova: Unipress.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, Elisabeth Delais-Roussarie, Hi-Yon Yoo, L. de Saussureand A. Rihs (eds.). Etudes de sémantique et pragmatique françaises, Berne: Lang.Google Scholar
  5. Beyssade, Claire, Elisabeth Delais-Roussarie and Jean-Marie Marandin. 2007. The prosody of interrogatives in French. Nouveau Cahier de linguistique franaise 28:163–175.Google Scholar
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. Chang, Lisa. 1997. Wh-in situ in French. MA thesis, University of British Colombia.Google Scholar
  9. Cheng, Lisa and Johann Rooryck. 2000. Licensing wh-in-situ. Syntax 3(1):1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1993. A null theory of phrase and compound stress. Linguistic Inquiry 24:239–297.Google Scholar
  11. Chomsky, Noam. 1971. Deep structure, surface structure and semantics interpretation. In Semantics, D. Steinberg and L. Jacobovits (eds.), 183–211. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Corblin, Francis and Lucia Tovena. 2003. L’expression de la négation dans les langues romanes. In Les langues romanes: problèmes de la phrase simple, Danièle Godard (ed.), 279–341. Paris: CNRS Editions.Google Scholar
  14. Doetjes, Jenny. 1997. Quantifiers and Selection. On the Distribution of Quantifying Expressions in French, Dutch and English. Doctoral dissertation, HIL, Leiden University. The Hague: HAG.Google Scholar
  15. Doetjes, Jenny, Elisabeth Delais-Roussarie and Petra Sleeman. 2002. The prosody of left detached constituent in French. In the Proceedings SPEECH PROSODY 2002, B. Bel and I. Marlien (eds.). Université of Aix en Provence, Avril 2002.Google Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Fitzpatrick, Justin Michael. 2006. Syntactic and Semantic Routes to Floating Quantification. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  18. Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2000. Negative concord and the scope of universals. Transactions of the Philological Society 98:87–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hamlaoui, Fatima and Éric Mathieu. 2007. WH in situ and WH movement at the syntax-phonology interface. The Second Brussels Conference on Generative Linguistics, Alternatives to Carthography, Bruxelles. 25–27 juin 2007.Google Scholar
  20. Heim, Irene. 1982. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  21. Ihsane, Tabea 2008. The Layered DP. Form and Meaning of French Indefinites Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 124. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  22. Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Mathieu, Eric. 1999. Wh in-situ and the intervention effect. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 11:441–472.Google Scholar
  24. Mathieu, Eric. 2002. The Syntax of Non-Canonical Quantification: A Comparative Study. Doctoral dissertation, University College London.Google Scholar
  25. Mathieu, Eric. 2004. The mapping of form and interpretation: The case of optional wh-movement in French. Lingua 114:1090–1132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Reinhart, Tanya. 1995. Interface strategies. In OTS Working Papers in Theoretical Linguistics 55–109. Utrecht University, Utrecht: OTS.Google Scholar
  27. Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 281–338. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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
  29. Starke, Michal. 2001. Move Dissolves into Merge: A Theory of Locality. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Geneva.Google Scholar
  30. Szendröi, Kriszta. 2001. Focus and the Syntax-Phonology Interface. Doctoral dissertation, University College London.Google Scholar
  31. Valmala, V. 2008. Topic, focus and quantifier float. In Gramatika jaietan: Papers in honour of Professor Patxi Goenaga, X. Artiagoitia and J. Lakarra (eds.), 837–857. Supplements of ASJU: Donostia.Google Scholar
  32. Zanuttini, Raffaela. 1991. Syntactic Properties of Sentential Negation: A Comparative Study of Romance Languages. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  33. Zubizarreta, Maria-Luisa and Jean-Roger Vergnaud. 2005. Phrasal stress, focus, and syntax. In The Syntax Companion, Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), 613–628. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of GenevaGenevaSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations