Weak islands and an algebraic semantics for scope taking

Abstract

This paper outlines a semantic approach t o w eak islands, a phenomenon that has traditionally been thought o f as purely syntactic. Weak islands are environments that allow some, but not all, wh-phrases to extract:(1) a. Which man didn't you invite? b. * H o w didn't you behave?(2) a. Which man do you regret that I invited? b. * H o w d o y ou regret that I behaved?We propose that at least in a signi cant set of the cases the violation is semantic in nature. In agreement w i t h E. Kiss (1992) and de Swart (1992), we informally characterize the role of interveners as follows:(3) Weak island violations come about when an extracted phrase should take s c o p e o ver some intervener but is unable to.

Noun complement clauses as referential modifiers

“…This fits with the general picture presented here of the CP in NCCs being a modifier. 47 See Szabolcsi & Zwarts (1993), who argue that there can be no variable left unbound within a referential complement, ruling out extraction of non-referential extractees and giving "factive" complements (referential complements in the present proposal) their weak island status. See also Szabolcsi (2006) for discussion of referentiality and weak islands.…”

Truly intrusive: Resumptive pronominals in questions and relative clauses

“…Turning to the difference between no islands and weak islands, we argue that, in addition to the intermediate trace, whether introduces a new scope domain (which can be understood either in syntactic terms, as in Manzini (1998) or semantic terms as in Szabolcsi and Zwarts, 1993). The introduction of a new domain while the scope domain of the matrix question is still open involves higher integration costs.…”

The mapping of form and interpretation: the case of optional wh-movement in French

“…Therefore, these principles, as they stand, are not very useful for our purposes. 9 Following a tradition started by de Swart (1992), Szabolcsi andZwarts (1992/1993) and Honcoop (1998), I have argued elsewhere that the intervention effects in French WH-in-situ constructions are best accounted for in terms of scope. I will not repeat here the technical arguments with regard to the null operator I have postulated in French WH-in-situ constructions.…”