More than Intervention Effects: Pragmatic Accounts of an Embedded why
2
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Intervention effects have received much attention in previous studies. Intervention effects are triggered when an intervener (e.g., anyone, someone, only, also) precedes a wh-phrase in wh-questions. It has been known that this intervention effect disappears in why questions in Korean and Japanese. The existing analyses of this phenomenon have not paid much attention to the re-emergence of intervention effects when why is in an embedded clause, involving its matrix scope. This paper examines its distribution of scope interpretations depending on the position of why. Why can take the matrix scope only when it precedes the remnant elements in an embedded clause. The unacceptability of the matrix scope can be restrained by the principle of so-called Scope-Prosody Correspondence (SPC). This paper proposes that the matrix scope is acceptable only when the non-why-portion is placed within the post-focus domain (Tomioka, 2009). It is driven by the fact that the presuppositional proposition of why is peculiar in that the remnant elements correspond to the presuppositional proposition, independently from why. This strong presupposed proposition contributes to weak intervention effects of why. Secondly, the acceptability of an embedded scope varies across types of an intervener. The negative polarity item (NPI; e.g., anyone) disallows why to take an embedded scope. This paper proposes that it is due to a contradiction between a question and why that has a focus semantic value. When the question is negated in the presence of an NPI, it cannot satisfy why to be focused. In other words, the negated question leads to seeking the set of alternative propositions, instead of the focused why embedded clause, resulting in a contradiction.
Abstract
Intervention effects have received much attention in previous studies. Intervention effects are triggered when an intervener (e.g., anyone, someone, only, also) precedes a wh-phrase in wh-questions. It has been known that this intervention effect disappears in why questions in Korean and Japanese. The existing analyses of this phenomenon have not paid much attention to the re-emergence of intervention effects when why is in an embedded clause, involving its matrix scope. This paper examines its distribution of scope interpretations depending on the position of why. Why can take the matrix scope only when it precedes the remnant elements in an embedded clause. The unacceptability of the matrix scope can be restrained by the principle of so-called Scope-Prosody Correspondence (SPC). This paper proposes that the matrix scope is acceptable only when the non-why-portion is placed within the post-focus domain (Tomioka, 2009). It is driven by the fact that the presuppositional proposition of why is peculiar in that the remnant elements correspond to the presuppositional proposition, independently from why. This strong presupposed proposition contributes to weak intervention effects of why. Secondly, the acceptability of an embedded scope varies across types of an intervener. The negative polarity item (NPI; e.g., anyone) disallows why to take an embedded scope. This paper proposes that it is due to a contradiction between a question and why that has a focus semantic value. When the question is negated in the presence of an NPI, it cannot satisfy why to be focused. In other words, the negated question leads to seeking the set of alternative propositions, instead of the focused why embedded clause, resulting in a contradiction.
참고문헌 (46)
- Abrusán, M., "Islands of contradiction: Presupposition and negative islands", Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 18, pp.1~18 (2008)
- Abrusán, M., "Presuppositional and negative islands: A semantic account", Natural Language Semantics, 19, pp.257~321 (2022)
- Aoshima, S., "The Grammar and Parsing of Japanese WH-dependences", Doctoral, pp.2003
- Beck, S., "Quantified structures as barriers for LF movement", Natural Language Semantics, 4(1), pp.1~56 (1996)
- Beck, S., "Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation", Natural Language Semantics, 14(1), pp.1~56 (2006)
- Beck, S., "On wh-and operator scope in Korean", Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 6(4), pp.339~384 (1997)
- Branan, K., "Relationship Preservation", Doctoral, pp.2018
- Cinque, G., "Adverbs and Functional Heads" (1999), Oxford University Press
- Dayal, V., "Locality in WH quantification: Questions and relative clauses in Hindi (Vol. 62)" (2012), Springer Science & Business Media
- Deguchi, M., "NELS", pp.73~92 (2002), GLSA
- Erlewine, M., "Focus association by movement : Evidence from Tanglewood", Linguistic Inquiry, 3, pp.441~463 (2018)
- Fox, D., "The universal density of measurement", Linguistics and Philosophy, 29, pp.537~586 (2007)
- Hagstrom, P., "Decomposing Questions", Doctoral, pp.1998
- Hamblin, C., "Questions in Montague English", Foundations of Language, 10, pp.41~53 (1973)
- Hirotani, M., "University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 27: On Semantic Processing" (2003), University of Massachusetts:GLSA
- Hirotani, M., "Prosodic Boundaries in the Comprehension and Production of Wh-questions in Tokyo Japanese", Paper Presented at the 17th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing (2004)
- Hoji, H., "Logical form constraints and configurational structures in Japanese", pp.1985
- Ishihara, S., "WCCFL 21", pp.180~193 (2002), Cascadilla Press
- Ishihara, S., "Proceedings of the 3rd Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics", Proceedings of the 3rd Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, pp.165~189 (2002)
- Ishihara, S., "Intonation and Interface Conditions", Doctoral, pp.2003
- Ishihara, S., "Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure 1: Working Papers of SFB632", pp.77~119 (2004), University of Potsdam
- Ishihara, S., "Major phrase, focus intonation, multiple spell-out (MaP, FI, MSO)", The Linguistic Review, 24, pp.137~167 (2007)
- Karttunen, L., "Syntax and semantics of questions", Linguistics and Philosophy, 1, pp.3~44 (1977)
- Kitagawa, Y., "Prosody, syntax and pragmatics of Wh-questions in Japanese", English Linguistics, 22(2), pp.302~346 (2005)
- Korean Linguistics, "Japanese", pp.2003, Kitagawa, Y.
- Kitagawa, Y., "Gradience in Grammar:Generative Perspectives", pp.335~358 (2006), Oxford University Press
- in the overt syntax, "Natural Language and Linguistic Theory", 2005, ~
- Kotek, H., "Covert pied-piping in English multiple wh-questions", Linguistic Inquiry, 47(4), pp.669~693 (2016)
- Kuroda, S., "Syntax and Beyond (Indiana University Working Papers in Linguistics)", pp.83~116 (2005), Indiana University Linguistics Club
- Kuwabara, K., "Report (2) researching and verifying an advanced theory of human language", pp.115~127 (1998), Kanda University of International Studies
- Lee, K., "LF Blocking Effects are Topic Effects: WH Questions in Japanese and Korean", ms, pp.2001
- Mayr, C., "Intervention effects and additivity", Journal of Semantics, 31, pp.513~554 (2014)
- Miyagawa, S., "On the Nature of Wh-scope", ms, pp.1997
- Korean Linguistics, "Japanese", pp.2002, Miyamoto, E.
- Pesetsky, D., "Phrasal movement and its kin" (2000), MIT Press
- Rizzi, L., "Relativized Minimality" (1990), MIT Press
- Rooth, M., "Association with Focus", Doctoral, pp.1985
- Rooth, M., "A theory of focus interpretation", Natural Language Semantics, 1, pp.75~116 (1992)
- Ross, J., "Inner Islands", Ms, pp.1983
- Rullmann, H., "Maximality in the Semantics of Wh-constructions", Doctoral, pp.1995
- Sugahara, M., "Downtrends and Post-FOCUS Intonation in Tokyo Japanese", Doctoral, pp.2003
- Tanaka, H., "Invisible movement of sika-nai and the linear crossing constraint", Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 6, pp.143~188 (1997)
- Tanaka, H., "Remarks on Beck’s effects: Linearity in syntax", Linguistic Inquiry, 34, pp.314~323 (2003)
- Tancredi, C., "Deletion, Deaccenting, and Presupposition", Doctoral, pp.1992
- Tomioka, S., "Pragmatics of LF intervention effects: Japanese and Korean whinterrogatives", Journal of Pragmatics, 39(9), pp.1570~1590 (2007)
- Tomioka, S., "Why questions, presuppositions, and intervention effects", Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 18(4), pp.253~271 (2009)