Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Connectivity in Specificational Sentences

  • Published:
Natural Language Semantics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper is concerned with the relationship between the semantics of specificational and predicational sentences and the Connectivity effects they display. It discusses the advantages and disadvantages of semantic and syntactic approaches to Connectivity (the ‘unconstrained-be theory’, the ‘question-in-disguise theory’, and the ‘unclefting theory’), concluding that a semantic theory of Connectivity is not only preferable, but necessary. The paper also discusses the implications of such a move regarding Binding phenomena (i.e., Principle A, B, and C effects): adopting a semantic theory of Connectivity requires a theory of Binding which is different from the standard GB Binding Theory.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Akmajian, Adrian: 1970, ‘On Deriving Cleft Sentences from Pseudocleft Sentences’, Linguistic Inquiry 1, 140–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bach, Emmon: 1969, ‘Anti-pronominalization’, unpublished mimeograph, University of Texas.

  • Bach, Emmon and Barbara H. Partee: 1980, ‘Anaphora and Semantic Structure’, in J. Kreiman and A. Ojeda (eds.), CLS Parasession on Anaphora, Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago, pp. 7–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barss, Andrew: 1986, Chains and Anaphoric Dependence, PhD dissertation, MIT.

  • Beck, Sigrid and Hotze Rullmann: 1996, ‘Degree Questions, Maximal Informativeness, and Exhaustivity’, Proceedings of the 10th Amsterdam Colloquium, pp. 97–101.

  • Bennet, Michael: 1979, Questions in Montague Grammar, Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bittner, Maria: 1999, ‘Concealed Causatives’, Natural Language Semantics 7, 1–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chierchia, Gennaro: 1991, ‘Function WH and Weak Crossover’, Proceedings of WCCFL 10, CSLI Publications, Stanford, pp. 75–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chierchia, Gennaro: 1993, ‘Questions with Quantifiers’, Natural Language Semantics 1, 181–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cresti, Diana: 1995, ‘Extraction and Reconstruction’, Natural Language Semantics 3, 79–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, Östen: 1981, ‘Binding Relations in Dislocated Constituents’, talk presented at the Sloan Workshop on Alternatives to Transformational Grammar, Stanford University.

  • Dayal, Veneeta: 1996, Locality in WH Quantification, Kluwer, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • den Dikken, Marcel, Andre Meinunger, and Chris Wilder: 1998, ‘Pseudoclefts and Ellipsis’, ZAS Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 10, ZAS, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doron, Edit: 1982, ‘The Syntax and Semantics of Resumptive Pronouns’, Texas Linguistics Forum 19, University of Texas, Austin, pp. 1–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engdahl, Elisabet: 1986, Constituent Questions, Kluwer, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, Danny: 1999, ‘Reconstruction, Binding Theory and the Interpretation of Chains’, Linguistic Inquiry 30, 157–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freidin, Robert: 1986, ‘Fundamental Issues in the Theory of Binding’, in B. Lust (ed.), Studies in the Acquisition of Anaphora, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 151–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geach, Peter T.: 1964, ‘Referring Expressions Again’, Analysis 24(5), 73–92. Reprinted in P. Geach, Logic Matters, 1972, University of California Press, Berkeley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenhoven, Veerle van: 1996, Semantic Incorporation and Indefinite Descriptions, SfSReport–03–96, Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft, Universität Tübingen, Germany.

  • Grimshaw, Jane: 1977, English Wh-Constructions and the Theory of Grammar, PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grodzinsky, Yosef and Tanya Reinhart: 1993, ‘The Innateness of Binding and Coreference’, Linguistic Inquiry 24, 69–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groenendijk, Jeroen and Martin Stokhof: 1982, ‘Semantic Analysis of Wh-Complements’, Linguistics and Philosophy 5, 175–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groenendijk, Jeroen and Martin Stokhof: 1984, Studies on the Semantics of Questions and the Pragmatics of Answers, Academisch Proefschrift, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haïk, Isabelle: 1984, ‘Indirect Binding’, Linguistic Inquiry 15, 185–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halvorsen, P. K.: 1978, The Syntax and Semantics of Cleft Constructions, PhD dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamblin, C. L.: 1973, ‘Questions in Montague English’, Foundations of Language 10, 41–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, Irene: 1979, ‘Concealed Questions’, in R. Bäuerle, U, Egli and A. von Stechow (eds.) Semantics from Different Points of View, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 51–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, Irene: 1994, ‘Interrogative Complements of Know’, Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Conference and the Workshop on Discourse, The Israel Association for Theoretical Linguistics (IATL1), pp. 128–144.

  • Heim, Irene: 1999, ‘Notes on Superlatives’, ms. MIT.

  • Heycock, Caroline: 1995, ‘Asymmetries in Reconstruction’, Linguistic Inquiry 26, 547–570.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heycock, Caroline and Anthony Kroch: 1999, ‘Pseudocleft Connectedness: Implications for the LF Interface Level’, Linguistic Inquiry 30, 365–397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, Roger: 1973, The Pseudocleft Construction in English, PhD dissertation, MIT.

  • Jacobson, Pauline: 1994, ‘Binding Connectivity in Copular Sentences’, in M. Harvey and L. Santelmann (eds.), Proceedings of SALT IV, Cornell University, Ithaca, pp. 161–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, Pauline: 1995, ‘On the Quantificational Force of English Free Relatives’, in E. Bach, E. Jelinek, A. Kratzer and B. H. Partee (eds.), Quantification in Natural Languages, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 451–486.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, Pauline: 1999, ‘Towards a Variable-Free Semantics’, Linguistics and Philosophy 16, 353–422.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karttunen, Lauri: 1977, ‘The Syntax and Semantics of Questions’, Linguistics and Philosophy 1, 3–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krifka, Manfred: 1989, ‘Boolean and Non-Boolean “and”’, Ms., Tübingen and University of Texas at Austin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ladusaw, William: 1979, Polarity Sensitivity as Inherent Scope Relations, PhD dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lahiri, Utpal: 1991, Embedded Interrogatives and Predicates that Embed Them, PhD dissertation, MIT.

  • Landman, Fred: 1989, ‘Groups, I’, Linguistics and Philosophy 12, 559–605.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasersohn, Peter: 1998, ‘Generalized Distributivity Operators’, Linguistics and Philosophy 21, 83–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lebeaux, David: 1988, Language Acquisition and the Form of the Grammar, PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lebeaux, David: 1990, ‘Relative Clauses, Licensing, and the Nature of the Derivation’, Proceedings of NELS 20, GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, pp. 318–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linebarger, Marcia: 1987, ‘Negative Polarity and Grammatical Representation’, Linguistics and Philosophy 10, 325–387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Link, Godehard: 1983, ‘The Logical Analysis of Plurals and Mass Terms: A Lattice-Theoretical Approach’, in R. Bäuerle, C. Schwarze and A. von Stechow (eds.). Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language, de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 303–323.

    Google Scholar 

  • Łubowicz, Anna: 1998, ‘Two Views of Polish Reflexives’, ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partee, Barbara H.: 1986, ‘Ambiguous Pseudoclefts with Unambiguous BE’, in S. Berman, J.-W. Choe, and J. McDonough (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 16, GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, pp. 354–366.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partee, Barbara H.: to appear, ‘Copula Inversion Puzzles in English and Russian’, in K. Dziwirek, H. Coats, and C. Vakareliyska (eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 7: The Seattle Meeting 1998, Michigan Slavic Publications, Ann Arbor.

  • Pollard, Carl and Ivan Sag: 1983, ‘Reflexives and Reciprocals in English: An Alternative to the Binding Theory’, Proceedings of WCCFL 2, 189–203.

  • Pollard, Carl and Juan Sag: 1992, ‘Anaphors in English and the Scope of the Binding Theory’, Linguistic Inquiry 23, 261–303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinhart, Tanya: 1983, ‘Coreference and Bound Anaphora’, Linguistics and Philosophy 6, 47–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinhart, Tanya and Eric Reuland: 1993, ‘Reflexivity’, Linguistic Inquiry 24, 657–720.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riemsdijk, Henk van and Edwin Williams: 1981, ‘NP-Structure’, The Linguistic Review 1, 171–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robert, Craige: 1987, Modal Subordination, Anaphora and Distributivity, PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romero, Maribel: 1998, ‘Problems for a Semantic Account of Scope Reconstruction’, in G. Katz, S.-S. Kim, and H. Winhart (eds.), Reconstruction: Proceedings of the 1997 Tübingen Workshop, pp. 127–153.

  • Ross, J. R.: 1972, ‘Act’, in D. Davidson and G. Harman (eds.), Semantics of Natural Language, Reidel, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, J. R.: 1997, ‘That Is the Question’, paper presented at the University of Pennyslvania.

  • Rullmann, Hotze: 1995, Maximality in the Semantics of Wh-Constructions, PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlenker, Philippe: 1998, Pseudocleft Connectivity and the Structure of Noun Phrases, ms., MIT.

  • Sharvit, Yael: 1996, ‘Functional Dependencies and Indirect Binding’, Proceedings of SALT VI, Cornell University, Ithaca, pp. 227–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharvit, Yael: 1997, The Syntax and Semantics of Functional Relative Clauses, PhD dissertation, Rutgers University.

  • Sharvit, Yael: to appear, ‘Functional Relative Clauses’, Linguistics and Philosophy.

  • Stechow, Arnim von: 1990, ‘Layered Traces’, paper presented at the Conference on Logic and Language, Revfülüp, Hungary.

  • Sternefeld, Wolfgang: 1997, ‘The Semantics of Reconstruction and Connectivity’, Arbeitspapiere des SFB 340, Universität Stuttgart and Tübingen, vol. 97.

  • Sternefeld, Wolfgang: 1998, ‘The Proper Treatment of Binding in Pseudo-Cleft Constructions’, in G. Katz, S.-S Kim, and H. Winhart (eds.), Reconstruction: Proceedings of the 1997 Tübingen Workshop, pp. 39–58.

  • Szabolcsi, Anna: 1986, ‘Comparative Superlatives’, in N. Fukui et al. (eds)., Papers in Theoretical Linguistic, MITWPL 8, 266–280.

  • Szabolcsi, Anna: 1987, ‘Bound Variables in Syntax: Are There Any’, in J. Groenendijk et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the 6th Amsterdam Colloquium, ITLI, University of Amsterdam.

  • Szabolcsi, Anna: 1997, ‘Quantifiers in Pair-List Readings’, in A. Szabolcsi (ed.), Ways of Scope Taking, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 311–347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, Edwin: 1983, ‘Semantic vs. Syntactic Categories’, Linguistics and Philosophy 6, 423–446.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, Edwin: 1994, Thematic Structure in Syntax (Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 23), MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann, Thomas Ede: 1993, ‘On the Proper Treatment of Opacity in Certain Verbs’, Natural Language Semantics 1, 149–179.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Liuguistics, University of Connecticut, U-1145, Storrs, CT, 06269-1145, USA; E-mail

    Yael Sharvit

Authors
  1. Yael Sharvit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sharvit, Y. Connectivity in Specificational Sentences. Natural Language Semantics 7, 299–339 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008390623435

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008390623435

Keywords

Search

Navigation