Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Alternatives in Semantics pp 123–149Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

Consequences of an Alternative Semantics for the Analysis of Intervention Effects

  • Chapter

Part of the book series: Palgrave Studies in Pragmatics, Language and Cognition ((PSPLC))

Abstract

Consider the difference in acceptability between (1) and (2). If a negative quantifier intervenes between the two wh-expressions as in (1), the question is unacceptable. If the quantifier is replaced by a referential expression as in (2), the question becomes fine. The effect witnessed in (1) is referred to as an intervention effect. It is brought about by a range of intervening operators.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Barwise, J. and R. Cooper (1981) ‘Generalized Quantifiers and Natural Language’, Linguisticsand Philosophy, 4: 159–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, S. (1996a) ‘Quantified Structures as Barriers for LF Movement’, Natural Language Semantics, 4(1): 1–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, S. (1996b) ‘Wh-Constructions and Transparent Logical Form,’ PhD thesis, University of Tübingen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, S. (2006) ‘Intervention Effects Follow from Focus Interpretation,’ Natural Language Semantics, 14(1): 1–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, S. and S. Vasishth (2009) ‘Multiple Focus’, Journal of Semantics, 26: 159–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cable, S. (2010) The Grammar of Q: Q-Particles, Wh-Movement and Pied-Piping (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chierchia, G. (1992) ‘Questions with Quantifiers’, Natural Language Semantics, 1(2): 181–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chierchia, G. (2006) ‘Broaden Your Views: Implicatures of Domain Widening and the “Logicality” of Language’, Linguistic Inquiry, 37(4): 535–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groenendijk, J. and M. Stokhof (1984) ‘Studies on the Semantics of Questions and the Pragmatics of Answers’, PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haida, A. (2007) ‘The Indefiniteness and Focusing of Wh-Words’, PhD thesis, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamblin, C. (1973) ‘Questions in Montague Grammar’, Foundations of Language, 10(1): 41–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, I. and A. Kratzer (1998) Semantics in Generative Grammar (Malden, MA: Blackwell).

    Google Scholar 

  • Higginbotham, J. (1993) ‘Interrogatives’ in K. Hale and S. J. Keyser (eds) The View from Building 20 (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), pp. 195–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Honcoop, M. (1998) ‘Dynamic Excursions on Weak Islands’, PhD thesis, University of Leiden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn, L. R. (1969). ‘A Presuppositional Analysis of only and even’ in Papers from the 5th Annual Meeting of the Chicago LinguisticsSociety, Chicago Linguistics Society, Chicago, pp. 98–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karttunen, L. (1977) ‘Syntax and Semantics of Questions’, Linguisticsand Philosophy, 1(1): 3–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karttunen, L. and S. Peters (1979) ‘Conventional Implicature’, Syntax and Semantics, 11: 1–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, S.-S. (2002). ‘Intervention Effects Are Focus Effects in’ N. Akatsuka and S. Strauss (eds) Japanese/Korean Linguistics, Vol. 10 (Stanford: CSLI), pp. 615–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer, A. (1991) ‘The Representation of Focus’ in A. v. Stechow and D. Wunderlich (eds) Semantics: an International Handbook of Contemporary Research (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter), pp. 825–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer, A. and J. Shimoyama (2002) ‘Indeterminate Pronouns: the View from Japanese’ in Y. Otsu (ed.) Proceedings ofthe Tokyo ConferenceonPsycholinguistics, Vol. 3 (Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo), pp. 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krifka, M. (1992) ‘A Compositional Semantics for Multiple Focus Constructions’ in J. Jacobs (ed.) Informationsstruktur und Grammatik, Sonderheft der Linguistischen Berichte, pp. 17–54.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, C. (to appear) ‘Intervention Effects and Additivity’, Journal of Semantics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rizzi, L. (1990) Relativized Minimality (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rooth, M. (1985) ‘Association with Focus’, PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rooth, M. (1992) ‘A Theory of Focus Interpretation’, Natural Language Semantics, 1: 117–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shimoyama, J. (2006) ‘Indeterminate Phrase Quantification in Japanese’, Natural Language Semantics, 14: 139–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Fintel, K. (1999) ‘NPI Licensing, Strawson Entailment, and Context Dependency’, Journal of Semantics, 16: 97–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wold, D. E. (1996) ‘Long Distance Selective Binding: the Case of Focus’ in T. Galloway and J. Spence (eds) Proceedings of SALT VI (Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications), pp. 311–28.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft (ZAS), Germany

    Clemens Mayr

Authors
  1. Clemens Mayr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Spain

    Anamaria Fӑlӑuş

Copyright information

© 2013 Clemens Mayr

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Mayr, C. (2013). Consequences of an Alternative Semantics for the Analysis of Intervention Effects. In: Fӑlӑuş, A. (eds) Alternatives in Semantics. Palgrave Studies in Pragmatics, Language and Cognition. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137317247_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation