| { | |
| "paper_id": "Y00-1037", | |
| "header": { | |
| "generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0", | |
| "date_generated": "2023-01-19T13:45:02.056529Z" | |
| }, | |
| "title": "ALTERNATIVE QUESTIONS IN THE SYNTAX-SEMANTICS INTERFACE", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Eun-Jung", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Yoo", | |
| "suffix": "", | |
| "affiliation": { | |
| "laboratory": "", | |
| "institution": "Seoul National University", | |
| "location": { | |
| "postCode": "151-742", | |
| "settlement": "Seoul", | |
| "country": "Korea" | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "email": "ejyoo@snu.ac.kr" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": "", | |
| "venue": null, | |
| "identifiers": {}, | |
| "abstract": "This paper deals with alternative questions in English, and proposes an analysis employing an alternative operator. I claim that the alternative question interpretation is not obtained by such syntactic processes as movement or gapping, but by scoping of an alternative operator that originates from the conjunction or. Accordingly, while the syntactic forms of alternative questions contain nothing more than a coordinate structure, their semantic component will be analyzed as including an alternative operator. Furthermore, using a 'multiple inheritance' type hierarchy of clauses, I will show that how the relationship between alternative questions and other types of questions can be represented.", | |
| "pdf_parse": { | |
| "paper_id": "Y00-1037", | |
| "_pdf_hash": "", | |
| "abstract": [ | |
| { | |
| "text": "This paper deals with alternative questions in English, and proposes an analysis employing an alternative operator. I claim that the alternative question interpretation is not obtained by such syntactic processes as movement or gapping, but by scoping of an alternative operator that originates from the conjunction or. Accordingly, while the syntactic forms of alternative questions contain nothing more than a coordinate structure, their semantic component will be analyzed as including an alternative operator. Furthermore, using a 'multiple inheritance' type hierarchy of clauses, I will show that how the relationship between alternative questions and other types of questions can be represented.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Abstract", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "body_text": [ | |
| { | |
| "text": "Questions can be classified into three types according to the kind of reply they elicit, polar questions (or yes-no questions), wh-questions, and alternative questions. Compared to other types of questions, alternative questions have not received as much attention. It is perhaps because the relationship between alternative questions and the other two types of questions is often not very clear; furthermore, an analysis of alternative questions usually requires dealing with various syntactic and semantic issues, such as disjunction, coordination, syntax and semantics of interrogatives, and treatment of whether and if.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "INTRODUCTION", | |
| "sec_num": "1." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "In this paper, we deal with English alternative questions such as (1) within the framework of Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 66, | |
| "end": 69, | |
| "text": "(1)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF0" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "INTRODUCTION", | |
| "sec_num": "1." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(1) Did Mary buy books or video tapes?", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "INTRODUCTION", | |
| "sec_num": "1." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "There are two issues to focus on regarding the analysis of (1). First, it should be explained how the alternative question interpretation of (1) is obtained. Some previous semantic analyses assume that the interpretation of (1) involves a semantic version of conjunction reduction, with its denotation corresponding to a set of propositions (Karttunen [5] , Groenendijk & Stokhof [4] , Roberts [10] ). On the other hand, there can be other semantic mechanisms that yield wide scope of disjunction in ( I ). In this paper, I will pursue an approach that posits a disjunction operator associated with or. Second, the syntactic representation of (1) should be determined in conjunction with its semantic interpretation. After examining two possible syntactic analyses, one involving movement of disjunction scope indicator, and the other employing syntactic reduction process, I will claim that (1) can be analyzed without assuming either movement or a reduction process. In the analysis to be proposed, (1) simply involves coordination of noun phrases. With the base-generated disjunction in syntax, I will present an analysis where alternative question interpretation is obtained by scoping of a disjunction operator originating from or.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 352, | |
| "end": 355, | |
| "text": "[5]", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 380, | |
| "end": 383, | |
| "text": "[4]", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF3" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 394, | |
| "end": 398, | |
| "text": "[10]", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF9" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "INTRODUCTION", | |
| "sec_num": "1." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "In section 2, I will discuss some basic properties of alternative questions. In particular, it is pointed out that an analysis of alternative questions should explain the fact that questions like (1) may receive a polar question interpretation as well as an alternative question interpretation. Section 3 deals with the semantic and syntactic behaviors of disjoined phrases in alternative questions. Based on Rooth & Partee [11] , I will show that the alternative question interpretation is related to the wide scope reading of or. Moreover, as mentioned above, I will argue that alternative questions like (1) can be simply analyzed as involving coordinated NPs. In section 4, I propose an analysis of alternative questions within HPSG. I will show that in the type hierarchy, alternative questions can be represented as a clause type, whose semantic representation is distinguished from that of other clause types by an alternative operator. The ambiguity of alternative questions noted above is accounted for by the optional nature of the disjunction operator. When the operator does not arise in or, the question at hand will receive a polar question interpretation. Section 5 concludes the paper.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 196, | |
| "end": 199, | |
| "text": "(1)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF0" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 424, | |
| "end": 428, | |
| "text": "[11]", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF10" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "INTRODUCTION", | |
| "sec_num": "1." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "An alternative question presents two or more options for the reply. It can be used as an indirect question introduced by whether or if, manifesting the same syntactic behavior as a polar question:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "ALTERNATIVE QUESTIONS AND POLAR QUESTIONS", | |
| "sec_num": "2." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(2) a. Did Sandy want Coke or iced tea? b. Bill asked Sandy whether she wanted Coke or iced tea.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "ALTERNATIVE QUESTIONS AND POLAR QUESTIONS", | |
| "sec_num": "2." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(3) a. Did Sandy want coffee? b. Bill asked Sandy whether she wanted coffee.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "ALTERNATIVE QUESTIONS AND POLAR QUESTIONS", | |
| "sec_num": "2." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Before we proceed, a terminological comment is in order. Cases like (3) have traditionally been called 'yes-no questions'. In this paper, however, I retain the term 'polar questions' to focus on the semantic aspect of the questions, which inquires the truth condition on a polarity scale. When the syntactic aspect involving formal processes such as subject auxiliary inversion or use of complementizers whether or if is at issue, I will use the term 'yes-no interrogatives'.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "ALTERNATIVE QUESTIONS AND POLAR QUESTIONS", | |
| "sec_num": "2." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "It is well known that yes-no interrogatives such as (2) are ambiguous between two interpretations, polar question interpretation and alternative question interpretation. When it is interpreted as a polar question, what Bill asked Sandy is whether or not she wanted one of the two drinks. In this case, Bill is indifferent as to which of the two drinks Sandy wants. When it is interpreted as an alternative question, what Bill asked is whether Sandy wanted Coke or Sandy wanted iced tea. In actual utterance, different intonations disambiguate the two readings.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 52, | |
| "end": 55, | |
| "text": "(2)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "ALTERNATIVE QUESTIONS AND POLAR QUESTIONS", | |
| "sec_num": "2." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "There is another type of alternative questions in (4):", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "ALTERNATIVE QUESTIONS AND POLAR QUESTIONS", | |
| "sec_num": "2." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(4) a. Is Sandy still at home or did she already leave for the party? b. Bill asked me whether Sandy was still at home or she had already left for the party.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "ALTERNATIVE QUESTIONS AND POLAR QUESTIONS", | |
| "sec_num": "2." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Unlike (2) , two sentences are coordinated in (4). Following Ginzburg [2] , we will treat cases like (4) as disjoined polar questions. In other words, each disjunct in (4) is a polar question and is connected by or to form a coordinated sentence. In this case, the disjunction is construed as a choice between two questions)) Thus in the response, it is sufficient to reply to one disjunct. We will not focus on examples such as (4), since their syntactic analyses will involve nothing more than disjunction of polar questions. Karttunen [5] argues that polar questions such as (3a) can be considered as 'degenerate' alternative questions, thus claiming that the indirect polar question in (3b) is an alternative question, whether Sandy likes coffee or Sandy doesn't like coffee. Accordingly, the indirect 1) Following Ginzburg, I suggest that such interpretation of disjoined questions is caused by a conversational implicature carried by disjunction that exactly one of the disjunct holds, but not both.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 7, | |
| "end": 10, | |
| "text": "(2)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 70, | |
| "end": 73, | |
| "text": "[2]", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 538, | |
| "end": 541, | |
| "text": "[5]", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF4" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "ALTERNATIVE QUESTIONS AND POLAR QUESTIONS", | |
| "sec_num": "2." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "question in (3b) is analyzed as denoting the set of the propositions in (5):", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "ALTERNATIVE QUESTIONS AND POLAR QUESTIONS", | |
| "sec_num": "2." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(5) {Sandy likes coffee, Sandy does not like coffee} In Karttunen, this is analogous to the denotation of the indirect alternative question in (2b), namely the disjunctively specified set of propositions in (6):", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "ALTERNATIVE QUESTIONS AND POLAR QUESTIONS", | |
| "sec_num": "2." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(6) {Sandy wants Coke, Sandy wants iced tea} While our analysis does not directly draw on Karttenen's semantic analysis of polar questions and alternative questions, it shares the intuition behind his analysis: that both of them involve choice between propositions (or entities). As we will see in section 4.1, we assume that there is a common mode 'choice', by which both types of questions are interpreted.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "ALTERNATIVE QUESTIONS AND POLAR QUESTIONS", | |
| "sec_num": "2." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "As we saw in (1) and 2, alternative questions contain the conjunction or, and the semantics of disjunction is closely related to the alternative question interpretation. In this section, we will briefly look at the properties of disjoined phrases that are relevant in the discussion of alternative questions.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 13, | |
| "end": 16, | |
| "text": "(1)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF0" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Or", | |
| "sec_num": "3.1." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Rooth & Partee [11] observe interesting facts regarding the interpretation of disjunction in English and argues that or bears scopal properties. The properties of or as a scope-bearing element are shown in the following example (Rooth & Partee's (13) ; See also Larson [7] for the discussion of the example): 7Mary is looking for a maid or a cook.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 15, | |
| "end": 19, | |
| "text": "[11]", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF10" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 246, | |
| "end": 250, | |
| "text": "(13)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF12" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 269, | |
| "end": 272, | |
| "text": "[7]", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF6" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Or", | |
| "sec_num": "3.1." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The example (7) is three-way ambiguous. The first reading is a de dicto reading of the conjoined phrase, in which Mary is searching for a servant and would end the search if she finds x that meets the description, x is a maid or x is a cook. The second reading is a de re reading, where there is some particular individual x who is either a maid or a cook such that Mary is seeking x. The third reading, which is referred to as the 'wide scope or' reading in Rooth & Partee, involves 'disjunction reduction' interpretation, and can be paraphrased as 'either Mary is looking for an individual x meeting the description of being a maid or else she is looking for an individual x meeting the description of being a cook'.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Or", | |
| "sec_num": "3.1." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The wide scope reading of or also appears when or-disjunction is contained in the complement of control verbs such as want (cf. Schwarz [15] ):", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 136, | |
| "end": 140, | |
| "text": "[15]", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF14" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Or", | |
| "sec_num": "3.1." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(8) John wanted to eat rice or beans.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Or", | |
| "sec_num": "3.1." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The example (8) is ambiguous depending on the scope of or with respect to the embedding verb want. If or takes narrow scope in (8) , John would be indifferent as to whether he would end up with eating rice or eating beans. On the other hand, in the wide scope reading of or, the sentence is true if John wants to eat rice or John wants to eat beans. In this case, it is typically indicated that the speaker of the sentence does not know which of the two food John wanted to eat.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 127, | |
| "end": 130, | |
| "text": "(8)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF7" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Or", | |
| "sec_num": "3.1." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "So far, we have seen that or bears scopal properties, and that wide scope of or results in an interpretation containing disjunction of two propositions. We presume that or of alternative questions have the same property, and that such scopal nature of or is responsible for the alternative question readings of (1) and (2).", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Or", | |
| "sec_num": "3.1." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "This section briefly reviews two possible analyses of the syntax of alternative questions that may account for wide scope reading of disjunction; a movement analysis and a 'gapping' analysis. Based on Schwarz's [15] , I will show that neither of these approaches is appropriate, and then propose that alternative questions like (1) and (2) do not involve syntactic processes such as movement or gapping. Disjunction in (1) and (2) will be simply treated by the coordination of NPs in its syntactic representation.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 211, | |
| "end": 215, | |
| "text": "[15]", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF14" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Syntactic Representations of Alternative Questions", | |
| "sec_num": "3.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Larson [7] proposes a movement analysis of disjunction. He observes that wide scope reading of disjunction discussed in 3.1 can be obtained by the sentence initial either. For example, while (9a) is still three-way ambiguous, (9b) lacks de ditto reading. 9a. Mary is looking for either a maid or a cook. b. Either Mary is looking for a maid or a cook.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 7, | |
| "end": 10, | |
| "text": "[7]", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF6" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Syntactic Representations of Alternative Questions", | |
| "sec_num": "3.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The same pattern holds for examples with control verbs. In contrast to (10a), which is ambiguous, the example (lOb) wherein either is placed in the sentence-initial position, the ambiguity disappears. Thus (lOb) has only the wide scope reading of or: (10) a. John wanted to eat either rice or beans. b. Either John wanted to eat rice or beans.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 251, | |
| "end": 255, | |
| "text": "(10)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF9" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Syntactic Representations of Alternative Questions", | |
| "sec_num": "3.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Larson argues that the DS (deep structure) position of either in (9b) and (10b) is adjacent to the disjoined phrase, as in (9a) and (10a). When either is moved to the clause-initial position, as in (9b) and (10b), unbalanced either/or disjunction occurs. 2) Under this assumption, he argues: \"When either occurs displaced from its associated or, then its overt surface syntactic position explicitly ' marks' the scope of disjunction. On the other hand, when it occurs undisplaced and adjacent to its disjunction in surface form, then its potential surface positions delimit the potential scope of or\" (Larson [7, [224] [225] ).", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 609, | |
| "end": 612, | |
| "text": "[7,", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF6" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 613, | |
| "end": 618, | |
| "text": "[224]", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 619, | |
| "end": 624, | |
| "text": "[225]", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Syntactic Representations of Alternative Questions", | |
| "sec_num": "3.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "To implement this generalization, Larson proposes that either may undergo SS-or LF-movement, and the LF position of either marks the scope of disjunction.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Syntactic Representations of Alternative Questions", | |
| "sec_num": "3.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Larson further proposes that the surface syntax of alternative questions is very similar to that of unbalanced either/or disjunction in (9b) and (10b). He argues that this view is supported by the fact that historically, whether is developed as the wh-counterpart' of either, with the original meaning, which of either A or B. According to him, whether of the alternative questions is moved from its underlying position that is adjacent to the disjoined phrase to the clause-initial position (i.e. a COMP position in Larson's analysis). Since whether is now placed in the clause-initial position, it invokes the wide scope reading that gives rise to the alternative question interpretation.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Syntactic Representations of Alternative Questions", | |
| "sec_num": "3.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "This movement analysis is criticized by Schwarz [15] , who points out that it does not apply to the examples in (12) in the desired way. Larson's theory predicts that the sentences in (12) are derived from their sources (13) without any problem, since there is no island or finite clause that blocks either-movement. However, (12a-c) are degraded contrary to Larson's prediction. Since sources of (12a-c) are well-formed, this poses a problem with the movement account. The null indicator 0 is also posited in matrix alternative questions such as ' Do they like meat or fish?' in order to account for the wide scope of or. The use of 0, however, is not fully motivated. In particular, it is not clear why disjunction in English always needs a syntactic scopal indicator, while other scopal elements such as quantifiers and negation do not. If we have a way to account for the wide scope reading of or, without treating whether as a scope indicator, we would not need to posit a null element 0.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 48, | |
| "end": 52, | |
| "text": "[15]", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF14" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 112, | |
| "end": 116, | |
| "text": "(12)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF11" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 184, | |
| "end": 188, | |
| "text": "(12)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF11" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Syntactic Representations of Alternative Questions", | |
| "sec_num": "3.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Even when we follow Larson's employment of 0, other difficulties arise. As mentioned earlier, yes-no interrogatives are ambiguous between the polar question reading and the alternative question reading, depending on whether disjunction takes narrow or wide scope. When disjunction takes narrow scope, a problem may arise with the view that whether is a scopal indicator, since this view will only yield wide scope reading for or. In order to explain this, Larson assumes that there is an alternative way to derive examples like (14a). In addition to (16a) which involves whether arising in the disjoined phrase, he proposes another structure (16b) where whether originates from a hidden or not disjunction: (16) In (16b), whether is moved from the S-initial conjunctive element whether or not, where the latter phrase or not may not be realized in surface form. Moreover, the overt or within the NP has its own scope indicator, which adjoins to S. In the configuration (16b), the overt or takes only narrow scope. When we consider the structures (15b) and (16b), we find another problem regarding the nature of null 0 movement. The nature of 0 movement is not clear at all; while (15b) contains movement to COMP, (16b) contains adjunction to S.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 707, | |
| "end": 711, | |
| "text": "(16)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF15" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Syntactic Representations of Alternative Questions", | |
| "sec_num": "3.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Furthermore, it is questionable that one of the underlying structures of (14a) should contain the hidden element or not. Positing this hidden element is more problematic in the explanation of narrow scope reading of (14b), namely (17), because unlike whether, if is not directly followed by or not in the surface form. Based on the problems with either/whether movement that we have discussed so far, I conclude that it is worth looking for the account of alternative questions. Now we will briefly examine the second possible syntactic analysis of alternative questions, i.e. the 'reduction' account. Schwarz [15] proposes that either/or unbalanced disjunction (such as (10b)) is best analyzed as the result of a syntactic reduction process. Schwarz argues that the reduction process manifested in either/or disjunction can be identified with what Ross [12] calls 'gapping'. When gapping occurs, the 'gap' must include the finite verb in the second conjunct, as in (19a). In many cases, it contains other elements plus the verb, as in (19b,c) Each sentence in (22) includes limping disjunction, which violates the parallelism constraint. So far we have examined Schwarz's proposal that unbalanced either/or disjunction involves syntactic reduction. Now, would the same account be applicable to disjunction in alternative questions? Schwarz suggests that the answer is negative. This is because alternative questions do not follow the same kind of restrictions as gapping. According to him, while sentences in (12) (2) are simply the result of NP coordination via the conjunction or. As will be shown in the next section, the wide scope of disjunction will be explained by a theory of scope that is based on Cooper's [1] quantifier storage technique.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 610, | |
| "end": 614, | |
| "text": "[15]", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF14" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 854, | |
| "end": 858, | |
| "text": "[12]", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF11" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 1510, | |
| "end": 1514, | |
| "text": "(12)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF11" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 1515, | |
| "end": 1518, | |
| "text": "(2)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 1717, | |
| "end": 1720, | |
| "text": "[1]", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF0" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 1036, | |
| "end": 1043, | |
| "text": "(19b,c)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Syntactic Representations of Alternative Questions", | |
| "sec_num": "3.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "3) The term 'gap' refers to the elided material in the second coordinate.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Syntactic Representations of Alternative Questions", | |
| "sec_num": "3.2" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "In this section, we will show how alternative questions are represented within the framework of Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG).", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "REPRESENTATION OF ALTERNATIVE QUESTIONS", | |
| "sec_num": "4." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "In order to capture the relationship between syntax and semantics, we will employ a type hierarchy of clauses. While clause types can be treated as one dimension of a phrasal type hierarchy (Sag [13] ), we adopt in this work a more conservative version of HPSG, where the standard word/phrase distinction of sign is retained. In this version, clause types are subtypes of construction that are cross-classified with the word/phrase distinction (cf. Kathol [6] It is important to understand that each type (or subtype) is associated with type-specific constraints, and that for any sort in the hierarchy, constraints associated with that sort are inherited by all of its subsorts. For example, the sort yes-no-int will inherit all the constraints associated with interrog. Within HPSG, semantic content of a sign is represented as a value of the CONT(ENT) attribute. We assume that the CONT value of a sentence is of the sort, propositional)-obj , which includes information on the \"mode\" by which a sentence is interpreted (cf. Yoo [ 16] 4) The type wh-int also has its subtypes cross-classified with the rootedness dimension, which we do not discuss in detail here. In (25), the MODE value is of the sort, mode that is partitioned as in (27):", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 195, | |
| "end": 199, | |
| "text": "[13]", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF12" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 456, | |
| "end": 459, | |
| "text": "[6]", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF5" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 1032, | |
| "end": 1037, | |
| "text": "[ 16]", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF15" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Representation of Questions", | |
| "sec_num": "4.1." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "In (27), the sorts polar and alt respectively represent the mode in which polar questions and alternative questions are interpreted. The sorts polar and alt are represented as subsorts of choice, in order to reflect the observation that both polar questions and alternative questions involve choice among a given set of answers. Polar questions concern whether the proposition at hand is true or false, whereas alternative questions provide an option in terms of the phrases conjoined.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Representation of Questions", | |
| "sec_num": "4.1." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "We analyze the content of wh-questions as a propositional-object whose MODE value is wh and which has a wh-operator in its QUANTS list. Thus the CONTENT of a wh-question 'Who sneezed?' can be represented as follows:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Representation of Questions", | |
| "sec_num": "4.1." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "prop-obj MODE wh ISSUE psoa QUANTS <11zwh-op> NUC -sneeze SNEEZER F21", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Representation of Questions", | |
| "sec_num": "4.1." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "For polar questions, the content is of the type, propositional-object whose MODE value is polar. The following illustrates the CONTENT value of 'Did he leave?':", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Representation of Questions", | |
| "sec_num": "4.1." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(29)", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Representation of Questions", | |
| "sec_num": "4.1." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "prop-obj MODE polar -psoa ISSUE QUANTS < > NUC T sneeze SNEEZER On the other hand, the CONTENT of the alternative question 'Does he like cookies or jelly?' can be analyzed as in (30):", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Representation of Questions", | |
| "sec_num": "4.1." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(30) -prop-obj MODE alt psoa ISSUE QUANTS <alt-op NUC -like LIKER LIKED 4", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Representation of Questions", | |
| "sec_num": "4.1." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "As will be shown in 4.2, we propose that there is an alternative operator for the disjoined phrase, which appears in the QUANTS list in (30).", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Representation of Questions", | |
| "sec_num": "4.1." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Since the MODE value can be wh if and only if the QUANTS contains a wh-operator, we need the following constraint to ensure this:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Representation of Questions", | |
| "sec_num": "4.1." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "EQUATION", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 0, | |
| "end": 8, | |
| "text": "EQUATION", | |
| "ref_id": "EQREF", | |
| "raw_str": "(31) {MODE wh] H [QUANTS <..wh-op..>]", | |
| "eq_num": "(28)" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "section": "Representation of Questions", | |
| "sec_num": "4.1." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Likewise the MODE value can be alt if and only if the QUANTS contains an alternative operator. The relevant constraint is as follows:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Representation of Questions", | |
| "sec_num": "4.1." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(32) [MODE all] [QUANTS <..alt-op..>1", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Representation of Questions", | |
| "sec_num": "4.1." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "As we noted in section 2, matrix yes-no interrogatives in English, whether they are used as polar questions or alternative questions, involve subject-auxiliary inversion, while embedded yes-no interrogatives do not. This fact can be implemented via the INV(ERTED) value of the clause, which is identical to that of the head verb of the clause. This means we need to add the following constraints: In the case of subordinate yes/no interrogatives, we need an additional requirement to guarantee the introduction of whether or if via the MARKING value stated in (34).5)", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Representation of Questions", | |
| "sec_num": "4.1." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "It has been widely assumed that a wh-question interpretation is obtained by scoping of the interrogative operator associated with the wh-phrase. Based on the scoping property of disjunction that we saw in section 3, we assume that an alternative question interpretation in such examples as (35) is assigned by scoping of the alternative operator associated with the disjoined phrase:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Alternative Operator", | |
| "sec_num": "4.2." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(35) Does Sandy like cookies or jelly?", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Alternative Operator", | |
| "sec_num": "4.2." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "In order to represent the operator scope, we will employ Pollard & Sag's [8] theory of quantification, which is based on Cooper's [1] quantifier storage technique.6) I propose that when NPs are conjoined by or, the conjunction optionally has an alternative operator in its QSTORE. The QSTORE value of the conjunction is inherited into the entire resulting NP, and further into successively larger constituents, and retrieved at an appropriate site in the structure (i.e. at the node whose CONT ISSUE value is of the sort, psoa).", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 73, | |
| "end": 76, | |
| "text": "[8]", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF7" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 130, | |
| "end": 133, | |
| "text": "[1]", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF0" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Alternative Operator", | |
| "sec_num": "4.2." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The logical form of the alternative question (35) can be represented as (36), where the bracketed part corresponds to an alternative operator:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Alternative Operator", | |
| "sec_num": "4.2." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(36) [alt (x=y V x=z) A cookies'(y) A jelly'(z)] like(j,x)", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Alternative Operator", | |
| "sec_num": "4.2." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The alternative operator originates in the conjunction or. The lexical entry of or that conjoins constituents whose CONT is of nom-object (normally NPs) can be represented as follows:7)", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Alternative Operator", | |
| "sec_num": "4.2." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "5) Here we take the words whether and if to be markers whose MARKING values are of the sorts, whether and if, respectively. Other examples of markers includes complementizers that and for, and the comparative words than and as. (Pollard & Sag [8] ). See Ginzburg & Sag [3] for the treatment of whether as a complementizer which is a subtype of a verbal category. 6) Pollard & Sag's theory cannot explain scoping of wh-operators, and this is remedied in Yoo [16] and Pollard & Yoo [9] , which provide revised and extended theory of operator scope. Since our discussion of alternative questions in this paper is not directly related with wh-operators, we will adopt Pollard & Sag's theory for the sake of simplicity. 7) We assume that there is another entry of or that conjoins two categories whose CONTIISSUE are of sort psoa (i.e. VPs or Ss in usual cases). We posit separate entries in order to account for different combinatorial semantics in each case. While the version of semantics presented in Sag & Wasow [14] There are a number of points to note here. First we take a conjunction to be a functional head so that it can specify the conjunct daughters combined via its SPEC feature. Second, departing from the standard assumption, the SPEC value in (37) is represented as a set of symsem objects, rather than just a synsem object. Third, we intend that for each of the synsem objects in the SPEC value, there will be a corresponding psoa in the JUNCTS such that its relation is equal and its two arguments are 'structure-shared' with the CONT IND value and the IND value of the synsem object in the SPEC, respectively. Moreover, for each synsem object in the SPEC, its RESTR value is added in the CONTIRESTR value of the conjunction. 8) Fourth, as mentioned above, we assume that an alternative (disjunction) operator optionally appears in the QSTORE of or. When a disjoined NP is used in an alternative question, the inheritance and retrieval of the alternative operator results in the alternative question interpretation. Since there is a constraint (32) that the presence of the alternative operator in the QUANTS value is possible only when the CONT of the given clause is [MODE alt], it is guaranteed that the entry of or containing an alternative operator in its QSTORE is used only when the sentence is interpreted as an alternative question. When the disjoined NP does not include an alternative operator, the question at hand will simply yield a polar question reading. Following Pollard & Sag [8] , I assume that coordinate structures in English are unheaded, and consist of multiple conjunct daughters and a conjunction daughter. They are subject to the Coordination Principle in (38).", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 228, | |
| "end": 246, | |
| "text": "(Pollard & Sag [8]", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 269, | |
| "end": 272, | |
| "text": "[3]", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 457, | |
| "end": 461, | |
| "text": "[16]", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF15" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 480, | |
| "end": 483, | |
| "text": "[9]", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF8" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 1012, | |
| "end": 1016, | |
| "text": "[14]", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF13" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 2509, | |
| "end": 2512, | |
| "text": "[8]", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF7" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Alternative Operator", | |
| "sec_num": "4.2." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "In a coordinate structure, the CATEGORY and NON LOCAL value of each conjunct is subsumed by that of the mother.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "(38) Coordination Principle (weak version):", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Furthermore, I propose that coordinate structures are licensed by the following immediate dominance (ID) schema:", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "(38) Coordination Principle (weak version):", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(39) (Schema 8) : a phrase with DTRS value of sort coordinate-structure, such that the SPEC value of the conjunction daughter is token-identical to the set of SYNSEM values of the CONJUNCT-DTRS value, and whose CONT and QSTORE values are structure-shared with those of the mother, respectively.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "(38) Coordination Principle (weak version):", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Based on the following discussion, the NP cookies or jelly can be represented as in (40):", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "(38) Coordination Principle (weak version):", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "version of semantics. Moreover, since their rule does not account for the syntactic aspects of NP accordination, a separate coordination rule seems to be in order. 8) Accordingly, in (37), 13 indicates the set of RESTR values of the possible additional members in the SPEC value. ", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "(38) Coordination Principle (weak version):", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "On the other hand, the given sentence will be interpreted as a polar question, when there is no alternative operator that originates from the conjunction or: In (43), the tag 5 indicates the CONTENT value 8 in (42). Since or in (43) does not have an alternative operator, (43) will only yield polar question reading.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "RESTR", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "In this paper, I have presented an analysis of English alternative questions that does not involve movement or gapping in its syntactic form. We assumed that alternative questions containing disjoined NPs can be accounted for in terms of a coordination rule that conjoins phrases which are semantically nominal objects via the conjunction or. In the proposed analysis, the alternative question interpretation is obtained by scoping of an alternative operator which originates in the quantifier store of a disjoined NP. Since such an alternative operator is optional for a disjoined NP, when the NP does not contain the operator, the sentence in question receives a polar question interpretation. In order to account for embedded yes-no interrogatives, we examined the distribution of whether and if, and concluded that these words can be treated as markers whose MARKING values can be specified in the subcategorization frame of the verbs taking clausal complements.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "CONCLUDING REMARKS", | |
| "sec_num": "5." | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "back_matter": [], | |
| "bib_entries": { | |
| "BIBREF0": { | |
| "ref_id": "b0", | |
| "title": "Quantification and Syntactic Theory", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Robin", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Cooper", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1983, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Cooper, Robin. 1983. Quantification and Syntactic Theory. Dordrecht: Foris.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF1": { | |
| "ref_id": "b1", | |
| "title": "Questions, Queries, and Facts: A Semantics and Pragmatics for Interrogatives", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Jonathan", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Ginzburg", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1992, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Ginzburg, Jonathan. 1 992. Questions, Queries, and Facts: A Semantics and Pragmatics for Interrogatives. Stanford University dissertation.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF3": { | |
| "ref_id": "b3", | |
| "title": "Semantic Analysis of Wh-Complements", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Jeroen", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Groenendijk", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "Martin", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Stokhof", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1982, | |
| "venue": "Linguistics and Philosophy", | |
| "volume": "5", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "175--233", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Groenendijk, Jeroen, & Martin Stokhof. 1982. Semantic Analysis of Wh-Complements. Linguistics and Philosophy 5. 175-233.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF4": { | |
| "ref_id": "b4", | |
| "title": "Syntax and Semantics of Questions", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Lauri", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Karttunen", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1977, | |
| "venue": "Linguistics and Philosophy", | |
| "volume": "1", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "3--44", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Karttunen, Lauri. 1977. Syntax and Semantics of Questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1, 3-44.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF5": { | |
| "ref_id": "b5", | |
| "title": "Linearization-Based German Syntax", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Andreas", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Kathol", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1995, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Kathol, Andreas. 1995. Linearization-Based German Syntax. Ohio State University dissertation.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF6": { | |
| "ref_id": "b6", | |
| "title": "On the Syntax of Disjunction Scope", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Richard", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Larson", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1985, | |
| "venue": "Natural Language and Linguistic Theory", | |
| "volume": "3", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "217--164", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Larson, Richard. 1985. On the Syntax of Disjunction Scope. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3, 217-164.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF7": { | |
| "ref_id": "b7", | |
| "title": "Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Carl", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Pollard", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "A", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Ivan", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Sag", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": null, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "1", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Pollard, Carl, & Ivan A. Sag. 1 994. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF8": { | |
| "ref_id": "b8", | |
| "title": "A Unified Theory of Scope for Quantifiers and Wh-Phrases", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Carl", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Pollard", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "Eun", | |
| "middle": [ | |
| "Jung" | |
| ], | |
| "last": "Yoo", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1998, | |
| "venue": "Journal of Linguistics", | |
| "volume": "34", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "415--445", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Pollard, Carl, & Eun Jung Yoo. 1998. A Unified Theory of Scope for Quantifiers and Wh-Phrases. Journal of Linguistics 34.2. 415-445.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF9": { | |
| "ref_id": "b9", | |
| "title": "Information Structure in Discourse: Toward an Integrated Formal Theory of Pragmatics", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Craige", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Roberts", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1996, | |
| "venue": "Semantics. OSU Working Papers in Linguistics", | |
| "volume": "49", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "91--136", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Roberts, Craige. 1 996. Information Structure in Discourse: Toward an Integrated Formal Theory of Pragmatics. Papers in Semantics. OSU Working Papers in Linguistics 49, ed. by J.-H. Yoon & A. Kathol. 91-136.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF10": { | |
| "ref_id": "b10", | |
| "title": "Conjunction, Type Ambiguity and Wide Scope Or", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Mats", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Rooth", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Barbara Partee", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1982, | |
| "venue": "Prodeedings of the First West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Rooth, Mats, & Barbara Partee. 1982. Conjunction, Type Ambiguity and Wide Scope Or. In Prodeedings of the First West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. by D. Flickenger, M. Macken, & N. Wiegand. Stanford University.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF11": { | |
| "ref_id": "b11", | |
| "title": "Gapping and the Order of Constituents", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "John", | |
| "middle": [ | |
| "R" | |
| ], | |
| "last": "Ross", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1970, | |
| "venue": "Progress in Linguistics", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "249--259", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Ross, John R. 1970. Gapping and the Order of Constituents. In Progress in Linguistics, ed. by M. Bierwisch & K. E. Heidolph Mouton, 249-259.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF12": { | |
| "ref_id": "b12", | |
| "title": "English Relative Clause Constructions", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Ivan", | |
| "middle": [ | |
| "A" | |
| ], | |
| "last": "Sag", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1997, | |
| "venue": "Journal of Linguistics", | |
| "volume": "33", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "431--484", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Sag, Ivan A. 1997. English Relative Clause Constructions. Journal of Linguistics 33, 431-484.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF13": { | |
| "ref_id": "b13", | |
| "title": "Syntactic Theory, A Formal Introduction", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Ivan", | |
| "middle": [ | |
| "A" | |
| ], | |
| "last": "Sag", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Thomas Wasow", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1999, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Sag, Ivan A., & Thomas Wasow. 1999. Syntactic Theory, A Formal Introduction. CSLI Publications.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF14": { | |
| "ref_id": "b14", | |
| "title": "On the Syntax of Either", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Bernhard", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Schwarz", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1999, | |
| "venue": "Or. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17", | |
| "volume": "2", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "339--370", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Schwarz, Bernhard. 1999. On the Syntax of Either...Or. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17.2, 339-370.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF15": { | |
| "ref_id": "b15", | |
| "title": "1 997. Quantifiers and Wh-Interrogatives in the Syntax-Semantics Interface", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Eun", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Yoo", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Jung", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": null, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Yoo, Eun Jung. 1 997. Quantifiers and Wh-Interrogatives in the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Ohio State University dissertation.", | |
| "links": null | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "ref_entries": { | |
| "FIGREF0": { | |
| "num": null, | |
| "uris": null, | |
| "type_str": "figure", | |
| "text": "(11) a. Bill wonders Sandy likes whether [cookies or jelly] (DS) b. Bill wonders whether, Sandy likes t, [cookies or jelly] (SS)" | |
| }, | |
| "FIGREF2": { | |
| "num": null, | |
| "uris": null, | |
| "type_str": "figure", | |
| "text": "/no-int. --> [HEADIINV +] (34) subord-yes/no-int. ---> FHEADIINV -LMARKING whetherV" | |
| }, | |
| "TABREF0": { | |
| "content": "<table><tr><td colspan=\"4\">(13) a. (14) a. Susan asked them whether they wanted meat or fish.</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">b. Susan asked them</td><td>if</td><td>they wanted meat or fish.</td></tr><tr><td>(12)</td><td colspan=\"3\">a.??Either this pissed Bill or Sue off.</td></tr></table>", | |
| "text": "This pissed either Bill or Sue off. b. She turned either the test or the homework in. c. They locked either you or me up.If either does not move, then Larson's approach capitalizing on the movement of whether loses its motivation.While Schwarz's criticism focuses on either movement, there are some further problems that we can find with whether movement analysis. Consider the following sentence:Larson argues that the element if in (14b), which introduces an alternative question, is not plausibly analyzed as a scopal indicator on a par with either or whether, since if has no morphological or historical connection with disjunction. He claims that if in (14b) is simply a base-generated complementizer, and that the wide scope or reading is obtained not by the movement of if, but by the movement of the null (scopal) indicator 0. Thus the S complements", | |
| "html": null, | |
| "type_str": "table", | |
| "num": null | |
| }, | |
| "TABREF4": { | |
| "content": "<table><tr><td/><td>or</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">(22) are degraded, the corresponding alternative questions in (23) are grammatical.</td></tr><tr><td>(23)</td><td>a. I wonder</td></tr></table>", | |
| "text": "whether this pissed Bill or Sue off. b. I wonder whether they locked you or me up. c. I wonder whether she turned the test or the homework in.To summarize, Schwarz shows that alternative questions exhibit different syntactic properties from unbalanced either/or disjunction, and leaves it an open question how the interpretation of alternative questions is syntactically represented.FollowingSchwarz, I assume that what is responsible for the syntax of alternative questions in (2) is not gapping. I propose that the disjoined NPs in", | |
| "html": null, | |
| "type_str": "table", | |
| "num": null | |
| }, | |
| "TABREF5": { | |
| "content": "<table><tr><td colspan=\"5\">inv(erted)-yes-no-interrogative) and subord(inate)-yes-no-int(errogative) . 4) The basic hierarchy that</td></tr><tr><td>we will assume is shown in (24):</td><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td>(24)</td><td>clause</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td>I rootedness</td><td/><td/><td>mood</td></tr><tr><td>root subord</td><td colspan=\"2\">interrog</td><td>decl</td><td>imp</td></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"3\">yes/no-int wh-int</td></tr><tr><td>-</td><td/><td>suhord-</td><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">yes/no-int</td><td>yes/no-int</td><td/></tr></table>", | |
| "text": "). A clause is classified in two dimensions, sentence-mood and rootedness. Three basic sentence moods, declarative, interrogative, and imperative constitute a partition of mood, and this partition is cross-classified with rootedness of a clause. Interrogative clauses are further partitioned into yes/no interrogative and wh-interrogative, and yes/no interrogative, in turn, is partitioned into", | |
| "html": null, | |
| "type_str": "table", | |
| "num": null | |
| }, | |
| "TABREF7": { | |
| "content": "<table><tr><td>(37)</td><td>or</td><td/><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td/><td>HEAD</td><td colspan=\"2\">conjunction</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td/><td/><td colspan=\"2\">SPEC [IND RESTR</td><td/><td>IND RESTR</td><td>}</td></tr><tr><td/><td>CONT Ell</td><td/><td>IND</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td>or</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"2\">RESTR JUNTS</td><td>equal</td><td>-equal</td><td>U</td><td>U</td><td>U 4</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>ARG1 ARG2</td><td>0</td><td>ARG1 ARG2 F21</td><td>}</td></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"3\">QSTORE( [ DET alt</td><td>)</td><td/></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>1</td><td>REST(ND Q</td><td/><td/></tr></table>", | |
| "text": "enable them to state the combinatorial semantics of both cases in a single coordination rule, it remains to be worked out how operator scope is represented in such a", | |
| "html": null, | |
| "type_str": "table", | |
| "num": null | |
| }, | |
| "TABREF8": { | |
| "content": "<table><tr><td>(40)</td><td colspan=\"3\">NP FCONT 3</td><td/></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"3\">LQSTORE 4</td><td/></tr><tr><td>NP</td><td/><td colspan=\"2\">CONJ</td><td>2 NP</td></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"3\">SPECIIil, 2 }</td><td/></tr><tr><td>cookies</td><td colspan=\"3\">CONT</td><td>jelly</td></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"3\">QSTORE 4</td><td/></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td>or</td><td/></tr><tr><td>(41)</td><td/><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"3\">MODE alt</td><td/></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"3\">QUANTS<</td><td/></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"3\">RETRIEVED<</td><td/></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"3\">_QSTORE{ }</td><td/></tr><tr><td>V[INV+</td><td/><td/><td>NP</td><td colspan=\"2\">VP[QSTORE{U}]</td></tr><tr><td>does</td><td/><td/><td>Sandy</td><td>V</td><td>NP[QSTORE</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>like NP</td><td>CONJ</td><td>NP</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>[QSTORE{ 11 I</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"2\">cookies</td><td>jelly</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>or</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">In (41), which is interpreted as</td><td colspan=\"3\">an alternative question, the operator indicated by</td><td>represents</td></tr><tr><td>the description (42):</td><td/><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">(42) DET alt RESTIND a INDEX</td><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td>or</td><td/></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>equal</td><td>equal</td><td>cookies irjelly</td><td>1}</td></tr><tr><td/><td>{</td><td colspan=\"3\">JUNCTS ARG1 ARG2 21</td><td>ARG1 ARG2 [31</td><td>[</td><td>INSTB j,LINSTNI</td></tr></table>", | |
| "text": "The operator in the QSTORE of the NP in (40) is inherited and retrieved as in (41):", | |
| "html": null, | |
| "type_str": "table", | |
| "num": null | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } |