Scope marking: Cross-linguistic variation in indirect
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Overview A scope marking structure is characterized by the fact that it has two clauses, each of which contains wh expressions [CP-1...wh1...][CP-2...wh2(...whn)...]. While wh- 1 is a fixed lexical item, wh-2...wh-n are not. A possible answer to the question seems to specify values not for wh1 but for wh2...whn. In recent years such structures have come under a lot of scrutiny and various analyses have been proposed to account for their properties. In spite of differences in detail, these analyses can be classified into two groups on the basis of the status they accord to the wh expressions. The direct dependency approach treats wh-1 as semantically inert and assigns matrix scope to wh- 2...wh-n. The indirect dependency approach, on the other hand, takes wh-1 to play a crucial role in determining what the question quantifies over. Wh-2...wh-n do not have matrix scope but play an indirect role in matrix quantification because CP-2 forms the restriction of wh-1. Seen in this light, the direct and indirect dependency approaches are not tied to particular syntactic claims about the relation between CP-1 and CP-2. Whether a particular analysis can be characterized as direct or indirect depends solely on the status of the wh expressions at transparent LF, von Stechow’s term for the level of syntactic representation that feeds into the interpretive module
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Jens Timmermann (2006). Kant on Conscience, “Indirect” Duty, and Moral Error. International Philosophical Quarterly 46 (3):293-308.
Yael Sharvit (2008). The Puzzle of Free Indirect Discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy 31 (3):353-395.
Lester Embree (2006). Direct and Indirect Consciousness. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology 37 (1):1-8.
Yonatan Goshen-Gottstein (1999). The Functional Role of Representations Cannot Explain Basic Implicit Memory Phenomena. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (5):768-769.
Robert T. Pennock & Benjamin E. Beckmann, HybrID: A Hybridization of Indirect and Direct Encodings for Evolutionary Computation.
Fabian Dorsch (2009). Judging and the Scope of Mental Agency. In Lucy O'Brien & Matthew Soteriou (eds.), Mental Actions. Oxford University Press. 38--71.
Emar Maier (2009). Japanese Reported Speech: Against a Direct--Indirect Distinction. In Hattori et al (ed.), New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence. Springer. 133--145.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads1 ( #514,805 of 1,692,493 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?