Advertisement

Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 28, Issue 6, pp 687–737 | Cite as

Concealed Questions and Specificational Subjects*

  • Maribel Romero
Article

Keywords

Artificial Intelligence Specificational Subject Computational Linguistic 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Akmajian, A. 1970‘On Deriving Cleft Sentences from Pseudocleft Sentences’Linguistic Inquiry1140168Google Scholar
  2. Beck, S., Rullmann, H. 1999‘A Flexible Approach to Exhaustivity in Questions’Natural Language Semantics7249298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bošković, Z. 1997‘Pseudoclefts’Studia Linguistica51235277Google Scholar
  4. Brisson, C.: 1998, Distributivity, Maximality, and Floating Quantifiers, Rutgers Ph.D dissertation.Google Scholar
  5. Büring, D. 1998‘Identity, Modality, and the Candidate Behind the Wall’Strolovitch, D.Lawson, A. eds. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory VIIICLC, Cornell UniversityIthaca, NY3654Google Scholar
  6. Caponigro, I. 2004‘The Semantic Contribution of Wh-words And Type-Shifts: Evidence from Free Relatives Crosslinguistically’Young, R. eds. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory XIVCLC, Cornell UniversityIthaca, NY3855Google Scholar
  7. Caponigro, I. and D. Heller: 2003, ‘The Non-Concealed Nature of Free Relatives: Implications for Connectivity’, talk at the Workshop on Direct Compositionality, Brown University. To appear in P. Jacobson and C. Barker (eds.), Direct Compositionality.Google Scholar
  8. Cecchetto, C. 2000‘Connectivity and Anti-connectivity in Pseudoclefts’Hirotani, M.Coetzee, A.Hall, N.Kim, J.-Y. eds. Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 30GLSA, University of MassachusettsAmherst, MA137151Google Scholar
  9. Chomsky, N. 1986Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and UsePraegerNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Dikken, M., Meinunger, A., Wilder, C. 2000‘Pseudoclefts and Ellipsis’Studia Linguistica544189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Donnellan, K. 1966‘Reference and Definite Descriptions’Philosophical Review75281304Google Scholar
  12. Farkas, D.: 1993, ‘Modal Anchoring and NP Scope’, Linguistics Research Center working paper LRC-93-08, UC Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
  13. Groenendijk, J. and M. Stokhof: 1984,Studies on the Semantics of Questions and the Pragmatics of Answers, Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  14. Halvorsen, P. K. 1978The Syntax and Semantics of Cleft ConstructionsUniversity of TexasAustinPh.D. dissertationGoogle Scholar
  15. Heggie, L.: 1988, The Syntax of Copular Structures, USC Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
  16. Heim, I. 1979‘Concealed Questions’Bäuerle, R.Egli, U.Stechow, A. eds. Semantics from Different Points of ViewSpringerBerlin5160Google Scholar
  17. Heim, I.: 1994, ‘Interrogative Semantics and Karttunen’s Semantics for Know’, in R. Buchalla and A. Mittwoch (eds.), Proceedings of the Israeli Association for Theoretical Linguistics I, Jerusalem.Google Scholar
  18. Heim, I., Kratzer, A. 1998Semantics in Generative GrammarBlackwellOxfordGoogle Scholar
  19. Heller, D. 2002‘On the Relation of Connectivity and Specificational Pseudoclefts’Natural Language Semantics10243284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heycock, C., Kroch, A. 1999‘Pseudocleft Connectedness: Implications for the LF interface level’Linguistic Inquiry30365397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Heycock, C., Kroch, A. 2002‘Topic, Focus, and Syntactic Representations’Mikkelsen, L.Potts, C. eds. Proceedings of WCCFL 21Cascadilla PressSomerville, MA141165Google Scholar
  22. Higgins, R.: 1973, The Pseudocleft Construction in English, Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT [revised version published by Garland, New York, 1979; page references are to this version].Google Scholar
  23. Jacobson, P. 1994‘Binding Connectivity in Copular Sentences’Harvey, M.Santelmann, L. eds. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory IVCLC, Cornell UniversityIthaca, NY161178Google Scholar
  24. Karttunen, L. 1977‘Syntax and Semantics of Questions’Linguistics and Philosophy1344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kratzer, A. 2002‘Facts: Particulars or Information Units?’Linguistics and Philosophy25655670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Link, G. 1983‘The Logical Analysis of Plurals and Mass Terms’Bäuerle, R.Schwarze, C.Stechow, A. eds. Meaning, Use and Interpretation of LanguageWalter de GruyterBerlin302323Google Scholar
  27. Mikkelsen, L.: 2004, Specifying Who: On the Structure, Meaning, and Use of Specificational Copular Clauses, UCSC Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
  28. Moltmann, F. 1997‘Intensional Verbs and Quantifiers’Natural Language Semantics5152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Moro, A. 1997The Raising of Predicates: Predicative Noun Phrases and the Theory of Clause StructureCambridge University PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  30. Partee, B. 2000‘Copula Inversion Puzzles in English and Russian’Kusumoto, K.Villalta, E. eds. UMOP 23: Issues in Semantics and its InterfaceGLSA, University of MassachusettsAmherst, MA198208Google Scholar
  31. Partee, B., Rooth, M. 1983‘Generalized Conjunction and Type Ambiguity’Bäuerle, R.Schwarze, C.Stechow, A. eds. Meaning, Use and Interpretation of LanguageWalter de GruyterBerlin361383Google Scholar
  32. Percus, O. 2000‘Constraints on Some Other Variables in Syntax’Natural Language Semantics8173229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Romero, M. 2004a‘Intensional Noun Phrases with Know and BeCatalan Journal of Linguistics3147178Google Scholar
  34. Romero, M. 2004b‘Tense and Intensionality in Specificational Copular Sentences’Young, R. eds. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory XIVCLC, Cornell UniversityIthaca, NY271288Google Scholar
  35. Romero, M.: To appear, ‘Connectivity in a Unified Analysis of Specificational Subjects and Concealed Questions’, in P. Jacobson and C. Barker (eds.), Direct Compositionality.Google Scholar
  36. Ross, J. R. 1972‘Act’Davidson, D.Harman, G. eds. Semantics of Natural LanguageReidelDordrecht70126Google Scholar
  37. Ross, J. R.: 2000, ‘The Frozenness of Pseudoclefts – Towards an Inequality-Based Syntax’, ms. University of North Texas.Google Scholar
  38. Schlenker, P. 2003‘Clausal Equations (A Note on the Connectivity Problem)’Natural Language and Linguistic Theory21157214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sharvit, Y. 1999‘Connectivity in Specificational Sentences’Natural Language Semantics7299339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sharvit, Y. 2003‘Tense and Identity in Copular Constructions’Natural Language Semantics11363393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Williams, E. 1983‘Semantic vsSyntactic Categories’. Linguistics and Philosophy6423446Google Scholar
  42. Zimmermann, E. 1993‘On the Proper Treatment of Opacity in Certain Verbs’Natural Language Semantics1149179Google Scholar
  43. Zimmermann, E.: To appear, ‘Coercion vs. Indeterminacy in Opaque Verbs’, in R. Kahle (ed.), Intensionality, [Available at http://web.uni-frankfurt.de/fb10/zimmermann/].

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of PennsylvaniaPennsylvaniaUSA

Personalised recommendations