Intervention effects in questions [Elektronische Ressource] / vorgelegt von Shin-Sook Kim

Informations

• Publié par: goethe_universitat_frankfurt_am_main
• Publié le: 01 janvier 2008
• Nombre de lectures: 53
• Langue: Deutsch

Extrait

Intervention Effects in Questions
Inauguraldissertation
zur Erlangung des Grades eines Doktors der Philosophie
im Fachbereich Neuere Philologien (10)
der Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universita¨t
zu Frankfurt am Main
vorgelegt von
Shin-Sook Kim
aus: Taegu (Su¨dkorea)
2006
(Einreichungsjahr)
2008
(Erscheinungsjahr)1. Gutachter: Prof. Dr. Gu¨nther Grewendorf
2. Gutachter: Prof. Dr. Peter Sells
Tag der Promotion: 27. November 2006Contents
Acknowledgements vii
1 Introduction 1
2 Intervention Effects in Wh-Questions 5
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2 Intervention Effects in German . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.1 Wh-in-situ in German . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.2 Analysis of Wh-Intervention Effects in German . . . . . . 10
2.3 Intervention Effects in Korean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.3.1 Wh-in-situ in Korean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.3.2 Analysis of Wh-Intervention Effects in Korean . . . . . . 28
2.4 Intervention Effects Crosslinguistically . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.4.1 Turkish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.4.2 Malayalam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.4.3 English . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
2.4.4 Hungarian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2.4.5 French . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
2.5 Problems with the Minimal Quantified Structure Constraint . . . . 50
2.5.1 Overgeneralization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
2.5.2 Why Should Intervention Effects Hold? . . . . . . . . . . 54
iiiCONTENTS
2.5.3 Intervention Effects Are Focus Effects . . . . . . . . . . . 54
2.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
3 Focus Intervention Effects 57
3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
3.2 Focus and WH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
3.2.1 Syntactic Similarities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
3.2.2 Phonological Similarities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
3.2.3 Semantic Similarities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
3.3 Analysis of Focus Intervention Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
3.3.1 Semantics of Focus Intervention Effects . . . . . . . . . . 75
3.3.2 Syntax of Focus Intervention Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
3.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
4 Intervention Effects in Alternative Questions 119
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
4.2 The Phenomenon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
4.2.1 Intervention Effects in German . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
4.2.2 Intervention Effects in Korean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
4.2.3 Intervention Effects in English . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
4.2.4 Intervention Effects in Hungarian . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
4.2.5 Summary of the Facts and Consequences for Linguistic
Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
4.3 Analysis of Intervention Effects in Alternative Questions . . . . . 133
4.3.1 Deriving the Effect in the Framework of Romero and Han
(2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
4.3.2 Deriving the Effect in the Framework of von Stechow (1991)138
4.4 Are AltQs Wh-Questions? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
4.4.1 Is the Disjunctive Phrase a Wh-Phrase? . . . . . . . . . . 142
4.4.2 Movement in Alternative Questions? . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
ivCONTENTS
4.4.3 Consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
4.5 More on the Disjunction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
4.5.1 The Focus Semantic Contribution of Disjunctions . . . . . 163
4.5.2 Other Intervention Effects with Disjunctions? . . . . . . . 166
4.6 Some Further Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
4.6.1 The Size of the Disjuncts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
4.6.2 Intervention Effects in AltQs and Wh-Questions Crosslin-
guistically . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
4.7 Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
5 Intervention Effects in NPI Licensing 175
5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
5.2 NPIs and NPI Licensing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
5.3 Focus and NPI-Licensing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
5.4 The Intervention Effect for NPIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
5.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
6 Conclusion 189
6.1 Summary of the Dissertation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
6.2 Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
Bibliography 195
vCONTENTS
viAcknowledgements
This dissertation could not have been written without the help, friendship, and
encouragement that I have received from a number of people who have patiently
accompanied me for so many years. I am very glad for them as well as for myself
that the long journey will finally have an end. It is my great pleasure to be able to
express my gratitude and thanks to all of them.
First of all, I would like to thank my supervisors Gu¨nther Grewendorf and
Peter Sells. I cannot imagine this dissertation could ever have been finished with-
out their help and guidance. Discussions with Gu¨nther were always inspring and
led me to sharpen core assumptions. He was always just critical enough, and of-
ten suggested new ways of looking at things. Peter never failed to support and
encourage me through the process of writing this dissertation. Thanks to the in-
ternet, I’m sure I had the best “long-distance” supervisor one could ever imagine.
Endless discussions, comments, and insightful criticisms over the email helped
me understand many things better and made this dissertation a lot more readable.
I am also grateful to my first academic teachers in Germany, Arnim von Ste-
chow and Wolfgang Sternefeld. They have taught me all I know about syntax and
semantics. I could not have wished for better teachers for my studies. I want to
thank them for their constant support and interest in my work.
I have been lucky enough to have great friends whereever I have been. Thanks
to them, I could feel at home from the very first day in Germany. It has been a
long time since then and there are a lot of friends to whom I’m endlessly grateful.
viiACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Gereon Mu¨ller was (and still is!) a great friend and a role model for me.
I’ve always been impressed by his hard-working attitude and brilliant ideas. I’m
very grateful to him for his friendship, positive critique and advice over the years,
which helped me building my “linguistic mind”.
My co-author Sigrid Beck deserves a special “thank you!” for sharing her se-
mantic knowledge with me and listening to my half-baked ideas. My interest in
intervention effects was sparked when one day Sigrid came to me with her anal-
ysis of intervention effects and wanted to know whether Korean showed similar
effects. That was the beginning of racking my brains over quantifier scope, wh-
questions, and so on. It became a wonderful collaboration, and I have learned a
lot from her.
I am grateful to a number of people in Konstanz, especially to Miriam Butt,
Astrid Kraehenmann, Aditi Lahiri, Frans Plank, Henning Reetz, and Irene Wolke
for having been so helpful and taken care of me in difficult times.
I also want to thank my colleague friends in Frankfurt for their support and
help over past few years, especially, Patrick Brandt, Ortrud Bruchelt, Eric Fuß,
Elke Ho¨he-Kupfer, Melanie McLoughlin, and Ce´cile Meier.
I’m especially grateful to Eberhard Fahlke for helping me out with the admin-
istrative procedures which needed to be done all at the eleventh hour.
There are a lot of people who contributed to this work, providing me valuable
comments, judgements, encouragement, and discussions. I am grateful to Josef
Bayer, David Beaver, Ellen Brandner, Miriam Butt, Lansun Chen, Regine Eckardt,
Gisbert Fanselow, Caroline Fe´ry, Kook-Hee Gil, M.T. Hany Babu, Fabian Heck,
Hanneke van Hoof, C.-T. James Huang, Jung-Goo Kang, Carmen Kelling, Jong-
Bok Kim, Heejeong Ko, Jaklin Kornfilt, Manfred Kupffer, Susumu Kuno, Beth
Levin, Judith Meinschaefer, Shigeru Miyagawa, La´szlo´ Molna´rfi, Uli Sauerland,
Bala´zs Sura´nyi, Satoshi Tomioka, George Tsoulas, Hong Zhou, and Thomas Ede
Zimmermann.
I would like to thank Gereon Mu¨ller, Antje Zajonz, Kirke and Jason Mu¨ller
viiifor being such a nice family for me.
I am very grateful to Magda and Florian Schwager for their friendship and
care. Magda has gone through many of the ups and downs with me and has always
been a big support. I cannot thank her enough. I am very much looking forward
to working with her on various topics which have come up during our linguistic
chat sessions.
Finally, I would like to thank my family in Korea for their love and support
over all the years. I dedicate this dissertation to my mother.
ixACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
x