Partial Movement Constructions, Pied Piping, and Higher Order Choice Functions

Sternefeld, Wolfgang

doi:10.1515/9783050080116.473

Cited by 15 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…That such a generalization is required independently has been argued for by Sternefeld (2001Sternefeld ( , 2002 in discussing pied-piping and scope marking with sentential adjuncts such as the Hungarian because-clause in (9), repeated as ( According to Sternefeld (2001), there is a general semantic procedure that maps semantic objects of arbitrary type τ to objects of a higher type [τ , t]. By way of example, adjunct because-clauses usually denote a set of propositions of type <st,t>.…”

Section: Deriving the Meaning Of The Wh-rcmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…To cover these data as well we need to extend Dayal's proposal in two directions. First, we propose that matrix wh-scope markers can range over different kinds of semantic objects: they can range over propositions, as in standard cases of indirect scope marking discussed by Dayal, or sets of propositions (with why-phrases modified by because-clauses; see Sternefeld, 2001Sternefeld, , 2002, but in addition they can also range over all kinds of properties, such as for instance individual properties (with who/which-phrases), degree properties (with how many-phrases), and manner properties (with how-phrases). As a second extension of Dayal's analysis, we propose that the embedded clauses that contain the second wh-element denote different objects depending on their syntactic type.…”

Section: The Analysis Of Adjunct Scope Marking Constructions: Extendimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In contrast, embedded wh-RCs denote sets of individual properties and serve to restrict matrix questions about individual properties. As will be shown with reference to Sternefeld's (2001Sternefeld's ( , 2002 analysis of scope marking with because-clauses (see (9) above), such a generalization about the semantic denotations of embedded clauses containing wh-elements is required independently.…”

Section: The Analysis Of Adjunct Scope Marking Constructions: Extendimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Dayal's theory will be extended to provide a compositional analysis of these constructions. The extended approach argues for a generalization of the question-formation procedure to different clause types, as first advocated in Sternefeld (2001). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Indirect scope marking again: a case for generalized question formation

Lipták

Zimmermann

2007

Nat Language Linguistic Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper we describe and analyse a particular scope marking construction that has not received attention in the generative literature so far: scope marking into relative and noun-associate clauses, which we will refer to as adjunct scope marking. In this type of scope marking system, a wh-element in an embedded adjunct clause takes matrix scope when it occurs in a clause that syntactically and semantically modifies a wh-phrase in the matrix. These facts provide unambiguous evidence for the indirect dependency approach to wh-scope marking advocated by Dayal (1994Dayal ( , 2000 where the embedded question provides a semantic restriction for the matrix whelement. Dayal's theory will be extended to provide a compositional analysis of these constructions. The extended approach argues for a generalization of the question-formation procedure to different clause types, as first advocated in Sternefeld (2001).

show abstract

Section: Deriving the Meaning Of The Wh-rcmentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: The Analysis Of Adjunct Scope Marking Constructions: Extendimentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Analysis Of Adjunct Scope Marking Constructions: Extendimentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Indirect scope marking again: a case for generalized question formation

Lipták

Zimmermann

2007

Nat Language Linguistic Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For a semantic account of pied piping in terms of choice functions cf. Sternefeld (2001). For a relevant account of negative indefinites according to which <neg> is a formal feature that has to be checked off cf.…”

Section: (18) Otto Ist [ Pp Mit Nichts] Jemals Wirklich Zufrieden Gewmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Syntax of Prepositional Phrases

Bayer¹,

Bader²

Interfaces and Interface Conditions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The standard view about the uniformity of Case assignment by verbs and prepositions is challenged with data from German and an analysis according to which P has a feature structure which involves a Case feature that may not only participate in Case checking but may supply the Case that is missing in the complement of P.Adopting a probe/goal relation of agreement a fair number of peculiarities of the syntax of PPs can be explained such as obligatory pied piping, semantic selection, copy movement, operator scope and the role of adverbial proforms in pronominal PPs. Finally, the asymmetry in Case assignment between V and P is supported by novel data from sentence processing. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OverviewStandard assumptions about prepositions (P) and prepositional phrases (PP) are that (i) P is a lexical head on a par with V, A, N, and that (ii) PPs are on a par with VP, AP, NP. In particular, (iii) P is thought to assign Case to its complement just like V and A. We summarize some of the evidence indicating that these assumptions meet with a number of problems. Some of these problems have been noticed elsewhere, perhaps most lucidly in Grimshaw (1991).1 InGrimshaw's system of projection extension, PP is the highest extension of N such that N projects to N' and NP, then via D to D' and DP, and finally via P to P' and PP. The idea behind projection extension is that P shares with D and N the categorial feature (in Grimshaw's system [+N, −V]), a proposal that has been made in a more elaborate form by van Riemsdijk (1990;. In section 2 we will point out some of the notorious asymmetries between P/PP and other X/XP. These will encompass pied piping and selection as already discussed by Ross (1987) and Grimshaw (1991), but also novel evidence stemming from findings about copy movement, pronominal PPs, bare indefinites and quantifier binding. Taking up the idea that P is not only a lexical but also a functional head, a theoretical proposal will be made in section 3 which will in section 4 be applied to some of the cases which create a problem for the standard view about P as a lexical head and Case assigner. Evidence from sentence processing in 1 An earlier source is Ross (1967). Ross suggested that PPs undergo pied piping because they are simply a spe- Späth. Berlin, de Gruyter, 2 favor of the theoretical conclusions will be presented in section 5. The results are summarized in section 6.2. Distinctive Properties of P and PP Pied PipingThe data in (1) through (3) show that, in German, as in many other languages, wh-movement must not pied-pipe verbs or adjectives etc. while pied-piping of P is obligatory.( If P were a lexical head with Case assignment functions just like V and A, why should pied piping of PP be forced while pied piping of VP and AP is hardly ever possible? In Grimshaw's (1991) system "the PP is just as much a wh phrase as the DP" because PP is an extension of DP and as such representative of the wh featur...

show abstract

Pied‐Piping

Horvath

2017

The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Second Edition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“Pied‐piping” has been viewed throughout the evolution of generative grammar as involving the displacement of a constituent that is larger than, and properly contains, the element the particular movement operation is normally targeting (such as a wh‐ word contained within some larger phrase, e.g., which (boy) / whose in which boy's father/whose friends ). Being an effect directly associated with movement operations, its status and accounts have undergone significant shifts in the course of the evolution of the theory of grammar. The chapter provides a comprehensive overview of pied‐piping phenomena and discusses proposed analyses along with the theoretical contexts in which they arose. It lays out the variety of pied‐piping effects and central generalizations observed in the literature of the past decades regarding what pretheoretically can be considered pied‐piping structures. Starting with Ross' Pied‐Piping Convention, the chapter critically assesses the status and treatments of (apparent) pied‐piping, from Ross’ stipulation of a split between what triggers movement and what size constituents end up moving, via the Government and Binding model's “feature percolation” mechanisms and “Move α,” to potential accommodation of pied‐piping effects within the Minimalist Program's restrictive framework, relying only on projection, not feature percolation crossing maximal projections, and on “Agree.” The chapter delineates the descriptive dimensions of pied‐piping primarily based on wh ‐movement. It examines attested construction‐specific variation – namely, wh ‐pied‐piping in restrictive and non‐restrictive relative clauses, wh ‐questions, and free relatives – and explores structural properties of the phenomenon such as the phrase‐internal position of the pied‐piper, the category types of pied‐piped phrases, and non‐ wh ‐pied‐pipers. The related theoretical issues assessed include the locality/structural limitations on what can induce a pied‐piping effect, the “repair” nature of pied‐piping, the status of marked “massive” pied‐piping, and attested parametric variation. The chapter discusses feature percolation approaches and outlines two recent alternatives dispensing with the latter within a minimalist perspective.

show abstract

Partial Movement Constructions, Pied Piping, and Higher Order Choice Functions

Cited by 15 publications

References 12 publications

Indirect scope marking again: a case for generalized question formation

Indirect scope marking again: a case for generalized question formation

On the Syntax of Prepositional Phrases

Pied‐Piping

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About