<i>Wh-</i>Scope Marking

Lutz, Uli; Müller, Gereon; Stechow, Arnim von

doi:10.1075/la.37

Cited by 88 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, interpretational similarities and differences between interrogative Slifting and long-distance wh-questions are accounted for by extension: in languages that have both wh-scope marking and long-distance wh-questions, their similar (though not identical) meaning is well documented and accounted for (Lutz et al 2000). In English, which does not productively utilize the wh-scope marking strategy, Slifting is its closest approximation, so one would expect that its linguistic behavior should approximate and/or differ from that with long-distance questions in more or less the same areas whscope marking questions do (in languages that have those).…”

Section: Fine-tuning the Resulting Structure(s)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(6)) or wh-scope marking (cf. (7)) whose syntax and semantics are by now quite well understood (see Dayal 1996;Lutz et al 2000;Stepanov 2000;Lahiri 2002;among others Figure 1 overlooks these restrictions, and therefore seems to us an unlikely candidate for describing the grammatical options including interrogative Slifting. 2.…”

Section: Some Problematic Points Of Hhtt's Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This approach will not be directly relevant for our purposes (but see, e.g. the articles in Lutz et al 2000 andSchippers 2012 for comparative evaluations of the two approaches). The second approach, Indirect Dependency, views the wh-scope marker not as a dummy wh-expletive, as in Direct Dependency analyses, but as a fully fledged contentful wh-element that originates in the argument position of a selecting verb (and may be fronted if a language has overt wh-movement).…”

Section: Back To Wh-scope Markingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…what you-think [written has Jon] 'What do you think Jon wrote?' b. German (Lutz et al 2000) Wen glaubst du, daß Maria gesehen hat? who think you that Maria seen has 'Who do you think Maria saw?'…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Interrogative Slifting: More syntactic, less parenthetical

Stepanov

Stateva

2016

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article we re-assess the recent analysis of interrogative Slifting (e.g., Who is a Martian, do you think?) proposed in Haddican et al. (2014). In this analysis, the two component clauses have an indirect syntactic relation to each other, and the semantic and pragmatic relationship between the "slift" question and the main clause is conceived around the notion of evidentiality. We advance an alternative proposal whereby interrogative Slifting can be construed more on a par with wh-scope marking questions attested in languages like German or Hindi. Placing interrogative Slifting alongside wh-scope marking, a more familiar and better-studied construction type, avoids certain empirical difficulties of the original analysis and paves a way toward a uniform treatment of its syntactic, semantic and interface properties.

show abstract

Section: Fine-tuning the Resulting Structure(s)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Some Problematic Points Of Hhtt's Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Back To Wh-scope Markingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Interrogative Slifting: More syntactic, less parenthetical

Stepanov

Stateva

2016

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Schulz (2011) studies the occurrence of non-L1, non-L2 structures in the interlanguage of L1 Japanese speakers of L2 English producing and judging longdistance wh-questions. Her main focus is on the existence of scope-marking strategies that are grammatical in some languages such as German (Brandner 2000) or Hindi (Lutz et al 2000) but are not grammatical either in English or in Japanese. Her results are interpreted as evidence for Universal Grammar being available to non-native speakers, who entertain all typologically possible options until exposed to enough evidence from input to discard ungrammatical structures in the L2.…”

Section: Derivational Complexity Metricmentioning

confidence: 99%

Proficiency Matters: L2 Avoidance in Spanish Complex Wh- Production

Turrero-Garcia

2017

Borealis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. The Derivational Complexity Hypothesis (Jakubowicz & Strik 2008) proposes that computationally complex structures interact with syntactic constraints in linguistic production, causing the rise of avoidance strategies in child L1 and adult L2 speakers. These avoidance strategies have until recently been understudied in the field of SLA (as opposed to the use of ungrammatical structures), but they actively compete with target-like forms during the language acquisition process and can therefore advance our understanding of non-native linguistic development. This article provides evidence for the DCH based on avoidance strategies shown by non-native speakers of Spanish in the production of the whisland (How did you say when the jewels were stolen?). Through a game-based elicitation task, speakers at the intermediate and high-advanced level were prompted to produce questions containing a wh-island. The results show that intermediate speakers of Spanish significantly avoid producing questions that contain an island, as opposed to native and high-advanced speakers. The strategies used instead of the target are of a less complex nature (pronominalization of the second clause, omission of the middle verb), therefore supporting the DCH. High-advanced and native data, on the other hand, show a use of creative strategies that is absent from the intermediate data. Off-target constructions by these groups often consist of questions that are structurally more complex than the intended target forms (use of relative clauses and embedded NPs).Keywords. Second Language Acquisition; Derivational Complexity Hypothesis; Avoidance Strategies; Wh-Islands; Production; Spanish. RESUMEN. La Hipótesis de Complejidad Derivacional (Jakubowicz y Strik 2008)propone que las estructuras complejas desde un punto de vista computacional interactúan con las restricciones sintácticas en la producción lingüística, causando así un aumento del uso de estrategias de evasión en hablantes de L1 (niños) y L2 (adultos). Estas estrategias de evasión han recibido poca atención en el campo de la adquisición de segunda lengua hasta la fecha (a diferencia del uso de estructuras agramaticales), pero compiten con las formas meta durante el proceso de adquisición y, por tanto, pueden contribuir a nuestro conocimiento del desarrollo lingüístico no nativo. Este artículo apoya la HCD basándose en el uso de estrategias de evasión por parte de hablantes no nativos de español en la producción de la isla qu-(¿Cómo dijiste cuándo fueron robadas las joyas?). Con el uso de un experimento de estimulación lúdico, se motivó a dos grupos de hablantes intermedios y cuasi-nativos a producir preguntas que contuvieran una isla qu-. Los resultados muestran que los hablantes intermedios evitan producir preguntas que contengan una isla, al contrario que los hablantes cuasi-nativos y nativos. En su lugar, utilizan estructuras más simples desde un punto de vista computacional (pronominalización de la segunda cláusula, omisión del verbo medio), apoyando por tanto la HDC. Los dato...

show abstract

Mittelfeld Phenomena (Scrambling in Germanic)

Haider¹

2006

The Blackwell Companion to Syntax

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wh-Scope Marking

Cited by 88 publications

References 0 publications

Interrogative Slifting: More syntactic, less parenthetical

Interrogative Slifting: More syntactic, less parenthetical

Proficiency Matters: L2 Avoidance in Spanish Complex Wh- Production

Mittelfeld Phenomena (Scrambling in Germanic)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About