Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Alternatives in different dimensions: a case study of focus intervention

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Linguistics and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In Beck (Nat Lang Seman 14:1–56, 2006), focus intervention is used as an argument for reducing Hamblin’s (Found Lang 10:41–53, 1973) semantics for questions to Rooth’s (Association with focus. Ph.D. Thesis, 1985) focus semantics. Drawing on novel empirical evidence from Mandarin and English, we argue that this reduction is unwarranted. Maintaining both Hamblin’s original semantics and Rooth’s focus semantics not only allows for a more adequate account for focus intervention in questions, but also correctly predicts that focus intervention is a very general phenomenon caused by interaction of alternatives in different dimensions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abusch, D. (2002). Lexical alternatives as a source of pragmatic presupposition. In B. Jackson (Ed.), The proceedings of the 12th semantics and linguistic theory conference (SALT 12) (pp. 1–19). Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.

  • Abusch D. (2010) Presupposition triggering from alternatives. Journal of Semantics 27: 37–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Al Khatib, S. (2014). Free choice under only. In J. Iyer & L. Kusmer (Eds.), The proceedings of the north eastern linguistics society 44 (Vol. 1, pp. 15–28). Amherst: GLSA.

  • Aloni, M. (2003). Free choice in modal contexts. In M. Weisgerber (Ed.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 7, pp. 25 – 37.

  • Alonso-Ovalle, L. (2006). Disjunction in alternative semantics. Ph. D. thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

  • Alonso-Ovalle L. (2008) Innocent exclusion in an Alternative Semantics. Natural Language Semantics 16: 115–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alonso-Ovalle L. (2009) Counterfactuals, correlatives, and disjunction. Linguistics and Philosophy 32: 207–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alonso-Ovalle L., Menendez-Benito P. (2015) Epistemic indefinites: Exploring modality beyond the verbal domain. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Aoun J., Li Y.-H. A. (1993) Wh-elements in situ: Syntax or LF. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 199–238

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaver D., Clark B. (2003) Always and only: Why not all focus-sensitive operators are alike. Natural Language Semantics 11: 323–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beaver D., Krahmer E. (2001) A partial account of presupposition projection. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 10: 147–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck S. (1996) Quantified structures as barriers for LF movement. Natural Language Semantics 4: 1–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck S. (2006) Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 14: 1–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck S., Kim S.-S. (1997) On wh- and operator scope in Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 6: 339–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck S., Kim S.-S. (2006) Intervention effects in alternative questions. Journal of Comparative German Linguistics 9: 165–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, S., & Rullmann,. (1999). A flexible approach to exhaustivity in questions. Natural Language Semantics, 7, 249–297.

  • Biezma M., Rawlins K. (2012) Responding to alternative and polar questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 35: 361–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cable S. (2010) The grammar of Q. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Charlow, S. (2014). On the semantics of exceptional scope. Ph. D. thesis, New York University.

  • Cheng, L. L.-S. (1991). On the typology of WH-questions. Ph. D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

  • Cheng, L. L.-S. (2008). Deconstructing the shi.de construction. The Linguistic Review, 25, 235–266.

  • Chierchia, G. (2001). A puzzle about indefinites. In C. Cecchetto, G. Chierchia, & M. T. Guasti (Eds.), Semantic interfaces: Reference, anaphora and aspect (pp. 51–89). Stanford, CA: CSLI.

  • Chierchia, G., & Liao, H.-C. (2015). Where do Chinese wh-item fit? In L. Alonso Ovallel & P. Menéndez Benito (Eds.), Epistemic indefinites: Exploring modality beyond the verbal domain (pp. 31–59). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Ciardelli I., Roelofsen F. (2015) Alternatives in Montague grammar. In Proceedings Sinn und Bedeutung 19: 161–178

    Google Scholar 

  • Comorovski, I. (1989). Discourse and the syntax of multiple constituent questions. Ph.D. Thesis, Cornell University.

  • Comorovski I. (1996) Interrogative phrases and the syntax-semantics interface. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Constant, N. (2014). Constrast topic: Meaning and realization. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

  • Crain S. (2012) The emergence of meaning. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dayal V. (1996) Locality in wh-quantification: Questions and relative clauses in Hindi. Kluwer Academic Press, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dayal, V. (in press). Questions. Oxford surveys in semantics and pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press (To appear in October 2016).

  • Dong, H. (2009). Issues in the semantics of Mandarin questions. Ph.D. Thesis, Cornell University.

  • Eckardt, R. (2007). Inherent focus on wh-phrases. In E. Puig-Waldmueller (Ed.), Proceedings of Sinn and Bedeutung 11, 209–228.

  • Eilam, A. (2011). Explorations of the informational component. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Pennsylvania.

  • Erlewine, M. Y. (2014). Alternative questions through focus alternatives in Mandarin Chinese. In Proceedings of the 48th meeting of the Chicago linguistics society (CLS 48), pp. 221–234.

  • Fox, D. (2007). Free choice and the theory of scalar implicatures. In U. Sauerland & P. Statava (Eds.), Presupposition and implicature in compositional semantics (pp. 71–120). Plagrave Macmillan: Basingstoke.

  • Groenendijk, J., & M. Stokhof (1984). Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.

  • Grohmann, K. K. (2006). Top issues in questions: Topics-topicalization-topicalizability. In L. L.-S. C. Cheng & N. Corver (Eds.), Wh-movement: Moving on (pp. 349–388). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Guerzoni, E. (2003). Why even ask? On the pragmatics of questions and the semantics of answers. Ph.D. Thesis, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

  • Haida, A. (2007). The indefiniteness and focusing of wh-words. Ph.D. Thesis, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin.

  • Hamblin C. L. (1973) Questions in montague english. Foundations of Language 10: 41–53

    Google Scholar 

  • Han C.-H., Romero M. (2004) Disjunction, focus, and scope. Linguistic Inquiry 35(2): 179–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • He, C. (2011). Expansion and closure: Towards a theory of wh-construals in Chinese. Ph.D. Thesis, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University.

  • Heim I. (1983) On the projection problem of presuppositions. In Proceedings of WCCFL 15: 114–125

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim I., Kratzer A. (1998) Semantics in generative grammar. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoh P.-S., Chiang W.-Y. (1990) A focus account of moved wh-phrases at s-structure in chinese. Lingua 81: 47–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, C.-T. J. (1982a). Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

  • Huang, C.-T. J. (1982b). Move wh in a language without wh-movement. The Linguistic Review, 1, 369–416.

  • Huang, C.-T. J. (1988). Shuo shi he you [on be and have in chinese]. The Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica, 59, 43–64.

  • Ishihara, S. (2003). Intonation and interface conditions. Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

  • Karttunen L. (1977) Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 3–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karttunen, L., & S. Peters (1976). What indirect questions conventionally implicate. In Papers from the 12th regional meeting of Chicago Linguistc Society, pp. 351–369.

  • Kim S.-S. (2002) Intervention effects are focus effects. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 10: 615–628

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, S.-S. (2006). Questions, focus and intervention effects. In S. Kuno, I.-H. Lee, J. Whitman, S.-Y. Bak, & Y.-S. Kang (Eds.), Harvard studies in Korean linguistics XI (pp. 520–533). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company.

  • Kitagawa, Y., Roehrs, D., & Tomioka, S. (2004). Multiple wh-interpretations. In H.-J. Yoon (Ed.), Generative grammar in a broader perspective: The proceedings of the 4th GLOW in Asia, pp. 209–233.

  • Kotek, H., & Erlewine, M. Y. (to appear). Covert pied-piping in english multiple wh-questions. Linguistic Inquiry.

  • Kratzer, A. (1991). The representation of focus. In A. von Stechow & D. Wunderlich (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research (pp. 825–834). Berlin: de Gruyter.

  • Kratzer, A. (2005). Indefinites and the operators they depend on: From Japanese to Salish. In G. N. Carlson & F. J. Pelletier (Eds.), Reference and quantification: The partee effect (pp. 113–142). Stanford: CSLI Publications.

  • Kratzer, A., & Shimoyama, J. (2002). Indeterminate pronouns: The view from Japanese. In Y. Otsu (Ed.), The proceedings of the 3rd Tokyo conference on psycholinguistics (pp. 1–25). Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.

  • Krifka, M. (2001). For a structured meaning account of questions and answers. In C. Fery & W. Sternefeld (Eds.), Studia Grammatica 52 (pp. 287–319). Berlin: de Gruyter.

  • Larson R. K. (1985) On the syntax of disjunction scope. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3: 217–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, H.-C. (2005). On Chinese focus and cleft constructions. Ph.D. Thesis, National Tsing Hua University.

  • Li, A. Y.-H. (1992). Indefinite wh in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 1, 12–155.

  • Li, H. (2013). Association between focus particles and wh-phrases. In N. Goto, K. Otaki, A. Sato, & K. Takita (Eds.), The proceedings of the 9th GLOW in Asia (pp. 109–123). Tsu: Mie University.

  • Li, H., & Cheung, C. C.-H. (2015). Focus intervention effects in Mandarin multiple wh-questions. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 24, 361–382.

  • Liao, H.-C. (2011). Alternatives and exhaustification: Non-interrogative uses of Chinese wh-words. Ph.D. Thesis, Harvard University.

  • Lin, J.-W. (1996). Polarity licensing and wh-phrase quantification in Chinese. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Massachusetts.

  • Lin, J.-W. (1998a). Distributivity in Chinese and its implications. Natural Language Semantics, 6(2), 201–243.

  • Lin, J.-W. (1998b). On existential polarity wh-phrases in Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 7, 219–255.

  • Lin J.-W. (1999) Double quantification and the meaning of shenme ‘what’ in Chinese bare conditionals. Linguistics and Philosophy 22(6): 573–593

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin J.-W. (2004) Choice function and scope of existential polarity wh-phrases in Mandarin Chinese. Linguistics and Philosophy 27: 451–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mart’  L. (2003). Contextual variables. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Connecticut.

  • Mayr, C. (2014). Intervention effects and additivity. Journal of Semantics, 31, 513–554.

  • Miyagawa, S. (2010). Why agree? Why move?. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Nicolae A. (2015) Questions with NPIs. Natural Language Semantics 23: 21–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Novel, M., & Romero, M. (2010). Movement, variables and Hamblin alternatives. In M. Prinzhorn, V. Schmitt, & S. Zobel (Eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 14 (pp. 322–338). Vienna: University of Vienna.

  • Partee, B. (1993). On the ‘scope of negation’ and polarity sensitivity. In E. Hajicova (Ed.), Functional approaches to language description (pp. 1–18). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

  • Partee, B. H., & Rooth, M. (1983). Generalized conjunction and type ambiguity. In R. Bäuerle, C. Schwarze, & A. von Stechow (Eds.), Meaning, use and interpretation of language (pp. 362–383). Berlin: de Gruyter.

  • Pesetsky, D. (2000). Phrasal movement and its kin. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Rawlins, K. (2008). (Un)conditionals: An investigation in the syntax and semantics of conditional structures. Ph.D. Thesis, University of California at Santa Cruz.

  • Rawlins K. (2013) (Un)conditionals. Natural Language Semantics 40: 111–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinhart T. (2006) Interface strategies. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts C. (2012) Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics & Pragmatics 5: 1–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Romero M., Han C.-H. (2004) On negative yes/no questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 27: 609–658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romoli J. (2013) A scalar implicature-based approach to neg-raising. Linguistics and Philosophy 36: 291–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rooth, M. (1985). Association with focus. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

  • Rooth M. (1992) A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: 75–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rullmann, H., & Beck, S. (1998). Presupposition projection and the interpretation of which-questions. In D. Strolovitch & A. Lawson (Eds.), The proceedings of 8th semantics and linguistic theory conference (SALT 8) (pp. 215–232). Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.

  • Shan, C.-C. (2004). Binding alongside Hamblin alternatives calls for variable-free semantics. In R. B. Young (Ed.), The proceedings of the 14th semantics and linguistic theory conference (SALT 14) (pp. 289–304). Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.

  • Shimoyama J. (2006) Indeterminate phrase quantification in Japanese. Natural Language Semantics 14: 139–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simons M. (2005) Dividing things up: The semantics of or and the modal/or interactions. Natural Language Semantics 13: 271–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slade, B. (2011). Formal and philological inquiries into the nature of interrogatives, indefinites, disjunction, and focus in Sinhala and other languages. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

  • Szabolcsi, A. (2006). How unitary are intervention effects? Presented at Brussels Conference on Generative Linguistics.

  • Tancredi, C. (1990). Syntactic association with focus. In D. Meyer, S. Tomioka, & L. Zidani-Eroglu (Eds.), Proceedings of the first meeting of the formal linguistics society of Midamerica (pp. 289–303). Madison: University of Wisconsin.

  • Teng S.-H. (1979) Remarks on cleft sentences in Chinese. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 7: 101–113

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomioka S. (2007) Pragmatics of LF intervention effects: Japanese and Korean interrogatives. Journal of Pragmatics 39: 1570–1590

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomioka S. (2009) Why-questions, presuppositions, and intervention effects. Journal of East Asia Linguistics 18: 253–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Truckenbrodt H. (2013) An analysis of prosodic f-effects in interrogatives: Prosody, syntax and semantics. Lingua 124: 131–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsai W.-T. D. (2004) Tan zhi yu lian de xingshi yuyi [on the formal semantics of only and even in Chinese]. Studies of the Chinese Language 2: 99–111

    Google Scholar 

  • von Fintel, K. (1994). Restrictions on quantifier domains. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

  • von Prince K. (2012) Predication and information structure in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 21: 329–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Stechow, A. (1991). Focusing and background operators. In W. Abraham (Ed.), Discourse particles: Descriptive and theoretical investigations on the logical, syntactic and pragmatic properties of discourse particles in German (pp. 37–81). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

  • Watanabe, A. (2002). Loss of overt wh-movement in Old Japanese. In D. Lightfoot (Ed.), Syntactic effects of morphological change (pp. 179–195). New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Wold, D. E. (1996). Long distance selective binding: The case of focus. In T. Galloway & J. Spence (Eds.), The proceedings of the 6th semantics and linguistic theory conference (SALT 6) (pp. 311–328). Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.

  • Xie Z. (2013) Focus, (non-)exhaustivity, and intervention effects in wh-in-situ argument questions. Linguistic Review 30: 585–617

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, C.-Y. B. (2008). Intervention effects and the covert component of the grammar. Ph.D. Thesis, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan.

  • Yang, C.-Y. B. (2012). Intervention effects and wh-construals. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 21, 43–87.

  • Yatsushiro K. (2009) The distribution of quantificational suffixes in Japanese. Natural Language Semantics 17: 141–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, N. (1997). Syntactic dependencies in Mandarin Chinese. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Toronto.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Linguistics, New York University, 10 Washington Place, New York, NY, 10003, USA

    Haoze Li

  2. Department of Linguistics, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 18 Seminary Place, New Brunswick, NJ, 08901-1184, USA

    Jess H.-K. Law

Authors
  1. Haoze Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jess H.-K. Law
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Haoze Li.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Li, H., Law, J.HK. Alternatives in different dimensions: a case study of focus intervention. Linguist and Philos 39, 201–245 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-016-9189-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-016-9189-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation