Context dependence in the interpretation of questions and subjunctives [Elektronische Ressource] / von Elisabeth Villalta

Informations

• Publié par: eberhard_karls_universitat_tubingen
• Publié le: 01 janvier 2007
• Nombre de lectures: 15
• Langue: English

Extrait

CONTEXT DEPENDENCE IN THE
INTERPRETATION OF QUESTIONS AND
SUBJUNCTIVES
von
ELISABETH VILLALTA
Philosophische Dissertation
angenommen von der Neuphilologischen Fakultät
der Universität Tübingen
am 18. Dezember 2006
TÜBINGEN
2007Gedruckt mit Genehmigung der Neuphilologischen Fakultät der
Universität Tübingen
Hauptberichterstatter: Prof. Dr. Sigrid Beck
Mitberichterstatter: Prof. Dr. Arnim von Stechow
Mitberichterstatter: Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Sternefeld
Mitberichterstatter: Prof. Dr. Claudia Maienborn
Dekan: Prof. Dr. Joachim KnapeACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am indebted to Sigrid Beck for many things. She first introduced me to the
semantics of questions in a seminar in Amherst in the Fall 1996 and made this a very
pleasant experience for me. My interest in the semantics of questions has inspired all
my work ever since. While I was working on my dissertation under her supervision, she
was very stimulating and constructive in all her comments and suggestions. Her
excitement about my ideas has encouraged me to continue until the end, and her
friendship has been invaluable to me. Needless to say, this work would never have been
completed without her.
I am grateful to Arnim von Stechow for being very supportive and enthusiastic
about my work. I thank him, as well as Wolfgang Sternefeld and Claudia Maienborn for
accepting to be on my committee. Their very detailed reviews, criticism and
suggestions have helped me clarify many issues in this dissertation.
An important part of this work was developed during my years at the University
of Massachusetts at Amherst. My ideas on the subjunctive mood were developed under
the guidance of Angelika Kratzer and Barbara Partee. I would like to express my
gratitute to them: to Angelika, my advisor at U. Mass., for teaching me how to sharpen
my argumentation and for inspiring me with her creativity, and to Barbara for many
hours of discussion, criticism and suggestions that improved my work considerably.
Both have challenged me many times while being enthusiastic for my ideas, and have
always been generously available to discuss or read my work. Lisa Matthewson and
Roger Higgins were also very involved in the development of my ideas on the
subjunctive mood. I am indebted to them for reading and re-reading many drafts of my
chapters and for all their comments, criticisms and suggestions during our meetings.
Very special thanks to Yael Sharvit: my main idea for the semantics of the subjunctive
mood was born during an independent study with her that proved to be very inspiring.
My psycholinguistic work on how many questions was developed under the
guidance of Lyn Frazier and Chuck Clifton. I am indebted to Lyn Frazier for invaluable
advice throughout every stage of this project. Her enthusiasm has been a constant
source of inspiration. I am grateful to Chuck Clifton for many discussions and helpful
comments, and for providing me with the opportunity to run the experiments in his lab.
His assistance in running the experiments was indispensable. I have learned everything
I know about proper experimental work from him. Furthermore, I would like to thank
Gilles Boyé for help with the French questionnaire study.
My dissertation work has also benefitted from conversations with many
colleagues and friends. I am thankful to all of them. Among them were Ana Arregui,
Luis Alonso-Ovalle, Nicholas Asher, Emmon Bach, Claire Beyssade, Elena Benedicto,
iRajesh Bhatt, Gilles Boyé, Maria Nella Carminati, Mike Dickey, Molly Diesing,
Carmen Dobrovie-Sorin, Jenny Doetjes, Kai von Fintel, Irene Heim, Eva Juarros, Chris
Kennedy, Kiyomi Kusumoto, Paula Menendez-Benito, Orin Percus, Paul Portner,
Maribel Romero, Peggy Speas, Yael Sharvit, Junko Shimoyama, Bernhard Schwarz,
Philippe Schlenker, Anna Szabolcsi, Mike Terry, Susan Tunstall, Evangelia Vlachou,
Ted Sanders and Frank Wijnen, as well as the audiences at the SALT X conference at
Cornell University, the 30th Symposium of Romance Linguistics at the University of
Florida, the 29th NELS meeting at the University of Delaware, the Twelfth Annual
CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing at the CUNY Graduate School and
University Center, and the audiences at talks given at the University of Connecticut, at
the University of Texas at Austin, at the Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS, at the
Université Paris 7, and at the Universität Tübingen. Many thanks to Luis Alonso-
Ovalle, Ana Arregui, Eva Juarros and Paula Menendez-Benito for providing Spanish
judgements. For practical help in the final stages of this project, special thanks to Sonja
Haas-Gruber and Sveta Krasikova.
I am very grateful to my teachers at U. Mass., especially Sigrid Beck, Hagit
Borer, Chuck Clifton, Lyn Frazier, Roger Higgins, Kyle Johnson, John Kingston,
Angelika Kratzer, Lisa Matthewson, John McCarthy, Orin Percus, Tom Roeper,
Barbara Partee, Yael Sharvit, Peggy Speas and Ellen Woolford. I feel privileged to have
learned as much from them.
My linguistics career began in Paris, first at the UFR Linguistique at the
Université Paris 7, and then at the Département de Sciences Cognitives at the Ecole de
Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales. I thank all my teachers there for giving me such a
broad background in linguistics and cognitive science. I am indebted to Carmen
Dobrovie-Sorin, my first advisor, for making generative linguistics available to me and
for being generous in teaching and advising. Thanks also to the many other teachers in
Paris that have contributed to my generative grammar background, among which were
Francis Corblin, Jacqueline Guéron, Lea Nash, Georges Rebuschi and Alain Rouveret.
Special thanks also to Claire Beyssade, Francis Corblin, Carmen Dobrovie-Sorin,
Daniele Godard and Jean-Marie Marandin who all formed part of a semantics research
group in Paris in which I first discovered Montague Grammar.
Finally, many thanks to all my friends and colleagues in the various places in
which I have done linguistics, for providing an inspiring and motivating environment
and for sharing good times with me.
iiTABLE OF CONTENTS
I N TR O D U C TI O N ........................................................... 1
1.1 Context dependence in the interpretation of questions and subjunctives . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 D ata a nd theoretical q uestions ........................................ 2
1.2.1 English and French How many questions and quantifier scope . . . . . . . 2
1.2.2 The subjunctive mood in Spanish complement clauses . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3 Framework and theoretical tools adopted in this dissertation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.3.1 The s y ntactic c om ponent ................................... 10
1.3.2 The s em antic c om ponent ................................... 11
1.4 O v erv iew o f the d issertation......................................... 17
N O T E S ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. 19
A PPE N D I X TO C H A PTE R 1 .......................................... 20
List of predicates that select the subjunctive/indicative mood . . . . . . . . . . . 20
HOW MANY QUESTIONS: PSYCHOLINGUISTIC EVIDENCE FOR CONTEXT
D E P E N D E N C E ..................................................... 23
2.1 I ntr oduction...................................................... 23
2.2 Processing quantifier scope ambiguities in How many q u e s t i o n s ............ 25
2.2.1 The d ata ................................................ 25
2.2.2 The semantic representations for how many q uestions ............ 27
2.2.3 The assumptions of the processing model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2.2.4 The Minim al C ost H y pot h es is ............................... 32
2.2.5 E xperim ent I ............................................. 34
2.2.5.1 Method ......................................... 36
2.2.5.2 R esults.......................................... 37
2.2.5.3 D iscussion....................................... 38
2.3 Further evidence from French How many q uestion s ...................... 40
2.3.1 The d ata ................................................ 40
2.3.2 The B lock ing H y pothesi s ................................... 42
2.3.3 E xperim ent I I ............................................ 43
2.3.3.1 Method ......................................... 44
2.3.3.2 R esults.......................................... 44
2.3.3.3 D iscussion....................................... 46
iii2.4 On-line evidence for reference to context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
2.4.1 The Context Dependence Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
2.4.2 E xperim ent I I I............................................ 56
2.4.2.1 Method ......................................... 58
2.4.2.2 R esults.......................................... 59
2.4.2.3 D iscussion....................................... 61
2.5 C onclusion ...................................................... 64
N O T E S ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. 66
A PPE N D I X TO C H A PTE R 2 .......................................... 68
1. Materials of the English questionnaire study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
2. the French questionnaire study . . . . . . . .