Propositional Surprise ‘How’ Questions and Insensitivity to Inner Island
2
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This paper investigates the insensitivity of propositional surprise ‘how’ in English to the so-called Inner Island Constraint. We first characterize this type of ‘how’ as distinct from other familiar types of manner, method, and degree ‘how’. It is supposed to prosodically bear nuclear accent, syntactically trigger Subject-Auxiliary Inversion, and semantico-pragmatically reconcile the post-‘how’ proposition with the rest of the speaker’s beliefs. On its syntactic and interpretational parallelism, we propose that this type of ‘how’ is generated in [Spec,CP] like ‘how come’ reanalyzed in the Comp position and identically to ‘why’ generated in [Spec,CP]. We also examine what Pesetsky (1987) dubbs as aggressively-non-D-linked elements like ‘the hell’, which is accompanied by propositional surprise ‘how’. Since the use of ‘the hell’ presupposes a possible lack of a definite answer to the wh-question, and if the answer exists, it’s not known to the speaker, ‘the hell’ is most appropriate to propositional surprise ‘how’ questions. By exploring the formal properties of this construction, this paper seeks to make significant contributions to our understanding of the intricate interplay between syntax, semantics, and pragmatics in the English language.
Abstract
This paper investigates the insensitivity of propositional surprise ‘how’ in English to the so-called Inner Island Constraint. We first characterize this type of ‘how’ as distinct from other familiar types of manner, method, and degree ‘how’. It is supposed to prosodically bear nuclear accent, syntactically trigger Subject-Auxiliary Inversion, and semantico-pragmatically reconcile the post-‘how’ proposition with the rest of the speaker’s beliefs. On its syntactic and interpretational parallelism, we propose that this type of ‘how’ is generated in [Spec,CP] like ‘how come’ reanalyzed in the Comp position and identically to ‘why’ generated in [Spec,CP]. We also examine what Pesetsky (1987) dubbs as aggressively-non-D-linked elements like ‘the hell’, which is accompanied by propositional surprise ‘how’. Since the use of ‘the hell’ presupposes a possible lack of a definite answer to the wh-question, and if the answer exists, it’s not known to the speaker, ‘the hell’ is most appropriate to propositional surprise ‘how’ questions. By exploring the formal properties of this construction, this paper seeks to make significant contributions to our understanding of the intricate interplay between syntax, semantics, and pragmatics in the English language.
참고문헌 (13)
- Collins, Chris., "More papers on wh-movement:MIT working papers in linguistics 15", pp.31~45 (1991), Cambridge University Press
- den Dikken, Marcel, "From hell to polarity: “Aggressively non-D-linked” wh-phrases as polarity items", Linguistic Inquiry, 33(1), pp.31~61 (2002)
- Dray, William, "Laws and explanation in history" (1957), Oxford University Press
- Hempel, Carl G, "Aspects of scientific explanation" (1965), The Free Press
- Jaworski, William, "The logic of how-questions", Synthese, 166, pp.133~155 (2009)
- Karttunen, Lauri, "Syntax and semantics of questions", Linguistics and Philosophy, 1, pp.3~44 (1977)
- Lahiri, Utpal, "Questions and answers in embedded contexts" (2002), Oxford University Press
- Martin, Joshua, "Wh-the-hell as a polarity-insensitive, speaker-oriented domain restrictor", Proceedings of SALT, 30, pp.334~354 (2021)
- Merchant, Jason, "The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis Vol. 1" (2001), Oxford University Press
- Pak, Marjorie, "Propositional how questions and negation", Proceedings of the 34th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, pp.423~430 (2017), Cascadilla Proceedings Project
- Rizzi, Luigi, "Relativized minimality" (1990), MIT Press
- Salmon, Wesley C, "Four decades of scientific explanation" (2006), University of Pittsburgh Press
- Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan, "Left periphery and how-why alternations", Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 17, pp.83~115 (2008)