Abstract
The Suzhounese polar question exhibits intervention effects, manifested by the linearity constraint barring anti-topical expressions against c-commanding the polar particle. This paper proposes to derive the intervention pattern from two assumptions. Namely, the polar operator is interpreted higher than the C-domain Q operator, and topics project a secondary illocutionary act independently of the primary act associated with the comment. I further show that the Suzhounese pattern is linked to linearity constraints elsewhere (e.g. in why-adjuncts) that crucially draw upon the exceptional wide scope of topics. I point out that the connections I have drawn motivate a novel class of scope effect that is distinct from the better understood focus-induced intervention.
-
Abbreviations in glossing are as follows
ACC: accusative; CLF: classifier; COP: copula; DEM: demonstrative; ERG: ergative; FUT: future; GEN: genitive; HAB: habitual; IPFV: imperfective; NEG: negative, negation; NOM: nominative; LOC: locative; PASS: passive; PL: plural; POSS: possessive; PRF: perfect; PRS: present; PRT: particle; PST: past; Q: question particle; REL: relativizer; RES: resultative; RP: resumptive pronoun; SG: singular; TOP: topic marker.
References
Abrusán, M. 2011. “Presuppositional and negative islands: A semantic account”. Natural Language Semantics 19(3). 257–321.10.1007/s11050-010-9064-4Search in Google Scholar
Agmon, G., Y. Loewenstein and Y. Grodzinsky. 2019. “Measuring the cognitive cost of downward monotonicity by controlling for negative polarity”. Glossa 36. 1–18.10.5334/gjgl.770Search in Google Scholar
Beck, S. 1996. “Quantified structures as barriers for LF movement”. Natural Language Semantics 4(1). 1–56.10.1007/BF00263536Search in Google Scholar
Beck, S. 2006. “Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation”. Natural Language Semantics 14(1). 1–56.10.1007/s11050-005-4532-ySearch in Google Scholar
Beck, S. and S. Kim. 2006. “Intervention effects in alternative questions”. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 9(3). 165–208.10.1007/s10828-006-9005-2Search in Google Scholar
Bhatt, R. and V. Dayal. 2020. “Polar queston particles: Hindi-Urdu kya:”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 38(4). 1115–1144.10.1007/s11049-020-09464-0Search in Google Scholar
Biezma, M. and K. Rawlins. 2012. “Responding to alternative and polar questions”. Linguistics and Philosophy 35(5). 361–406.10.1007/s10988-012-9123-zSearch in Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. 1978. “Yes-no questions are not alternative questions”. In Hiz, H. (ed.), Questions. Dordrecht: Reidel. 87–105.10.1007/978-94-009-9509-3_3Search in Google Scholar
Bott, O., U. Klein and F. Schlotterbeck. 2013. “Witness sets, polarity reversal and the processing of quantified sentences”. In Aloni, M., M. Franke and F. Roelofsen (eds.), Proceedings of the 19th Amsterdam Colloquium. 59–66.Search in Google Scholar
Bott, O. Fabian Schlotterbeck and Udo Klein. 2019. “Empty-set effects in quantifier interpretation”. Journal of Semantics 36(1). 99–163.10.1093/jos/ffy015Search in Google Scholar
Cable, S. 2009. “The syntax of the Tibetan correlative”. In Liptak, A. (ed.), Correlatives crosslinguistically. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 195–222.10.1075/lfab.1.09cabSearch in Google Scholar
Cao, Z. 2008. Hanyu Fangyan Dituji [Linguistic atlas of Chinese dialects]. Beijing: The Commercial Press.Search in Google Scholar
Chao, Y. 1928. Studies in the modern Wu–dialects. Beijing: Tsinghua College Research Institute.Search in Google Scholar
Cinque, G. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. London: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Cohen, A. and M. Krifka. 2014. “Superlative quantifiers and meta-speech acts”. Linguistics and Philosophy 37. 41–90.10.1007/s10988-014-9144-xSearch in Google Scholar
Cole, P. and C. L. Lee. 1997. “Locality constraints on yes/no questions in Singapore Teochew”. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 6(2). 189–211.10.1023/A:1008237705178Search in Google Scholar
Constant, N. 2013. “Witnessable quantifiers license type-e meaning: Evidence from contrastive topic, equatives and supplements”. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 22. 286–306.10.3765/salt.v22i0.2652Search in Google Scholar
Constant, N. 2014. Contrastive topic: Meanings and realizations. (University of Massachusetts at Amherst dissertation.)Search in Google Scholar
Corblin, F. 1996. “Quantification et anaphore discursive: la reference aux complementaires”. Linguages 123. 51–74.10.3406/lgge.1996.1756Search in Google Scholar
Drubig, H. 1994. “Island constraints and the syntactic nature of focus and association with focus”. Arbeitsbericht Nr. 51 des SEB 340: Sprachtheoretische Grundlagen der Computerlinguistik .Search in Google Scholar
Ebert, C. and S. Hinterwimmer. 2014. “A unified analysis of conditionals as topics”. Linguistics and Philosophy 37(5). 353–408.10.1007/s10988-014-9158-4Search in Google Scholar
Endriss, C. 2009. Exceptional wide scope. Berlin: Springer.10.1007/978-90-481-2303-2_4Search in Google Scholar
Endriss, C. and S. Hinterwimmer. 2008. “Direct and indirect aboutness topics”. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55(3–4). 297–307.10.1556/ALing.55.2008.3-4.5Search in Google Scholar
Erlewine, M. 2014. “Alternative questions through focus alternatives in Mandarin Chinese”. In Beltrama, A., T. Chatzikonstantinou, J. Lee, M. Pham and D. Rak (eds.), Proceedings of CLS 48. 221–234.Search in Google Scholar
Ernst, T. 1994. “Conditions on Chinese A-not-A questions”. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 3(3). 241–264.10.1007/BF01733065Search in Google Scholar
Farkas, D. and K. Bruce. 2010. “On reacting to assertions and polar questions”. Journal of Semantics 27(1). 81–118.10.1093/jos/ffp010Search in Google Scholar
Fodor, J. D. and I. Sag. 1982. “Referential and quantificational indefinites”. Linguistics and Philosophy 5(3). 355–398.10.1007/BF00351459Search in Google Scholar
Fox, D. and M. Hackl. 2006. “The universal density of measurement”. Linguistics and Philosophy 29(2). 537–586.10.1007/s10988-006-9004-4Search in Google Scholar
Frey, W. 2004. “A medial topic position for German”. Linguistische Berichte 198. 153–190.Search in Google Scholar
Grewendorf, G. and J. Sabel. 1999. “Scrambling in German and Japanese: Adjunction versus multiple specifiers”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17(1). 1–65.10.1023/A:1006068326583Search in Google Scholar
Grohmann, K. 2000. Prolific domains: On the anti-locality of movement dependencies. (University of Maryland, College Park dissertation.)Search in Google Scholar
Grohmann, K. 2003. Prolific domains: On the anti-locality of movement dependencies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.66Search in Google Scholar
Grohmann, K. 2006. “Top issues in questions: Topics-topicalization-topicalizability”. In Cheng, L. and N. Corver (eds.), Wh-movement. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 249–285.Search in Google Scholar
Gu, Q. 2016. “A study of the ge-VP question construction in Taixingnese”. Yuwen Yanjiu 138. 47–51.Search in Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. 2004. “Topicalization, CLLD and the left periphery”. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 35. 157–192.10.21248/zaspil.35.2004.226Search in Google Scholar
Hagstrom, P. 2006. “A-not-A Questions”. In van Riemsdijk, H. and M. Everaert (eds.), The companion to syntax. London: Blackwell. 173–213.10.1002/9780470996591.ch7Search in Google Scholar
Haiman, J. 1978. “Conditionals are topics”. Language 54. 565–589.10.1353/lan.1978.0009Search in Google Scholar
Heim, I. and A. Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Huang, J. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. (MIT dissertation.)Search in Google Scholar
Huang, J. 1988. “Modularity and explanation: The case of A-not-A questions”. In Chan, M. and T. Ernst (eds.), Proceedings of the Third Ohio State Conference on Chinese Linguistics. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club Publications. 141–169.Search in Google Scholar
Huang, J. 1991. “Modularity and Chinese A-not-A questions”. In Georgopolous, C. and R. Ishihara (eds.), Interdisciplinary approaches to language. Amsterdam: Springer Netherlands. 305–332.10.1007/978-94-011-3818-5_16Search in Google Scholar
Huang, J., A. Li and Y. Li. 2009. The syntax of Chinese. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139166935Search in Google Scholar
Huang, L. 2016. A study of kam questions in Taiwan South Min. (National Sun Yatsen University dissertation.)Search in Google Scholar
Huang, R. Ray. 2014. “Left periphery and chinese yes-no questions”. International Journal of Chinese Linguistics 1(2). 192–213.10.1075/ijchl.1.2.02huaSearch in Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: The MIT press.Search in Google Scholar
Jacobs, J. 1984. “Funktionale Satzperspektive und Illokutionssemantik”. Linguistische Berichte 91. 25–58.Search in Google Scholar
Jin, D. 2019. “A semantic account of intervention effects in Chinese why-questions”. Linguistics and Philosophy 52(1). 1–43.10.1007/978-3-662-54332-0_5Search in Google Scholar
Jin, D. 2020. “Copula functions in a cross-Sinitic perspective”. Folia Linguistica 54(1). 89–132.10.1515/flin-2020-2028Search in Google Scholar
Kayne, R. 1983. “Chains, categories external to S, and French Complex inversion”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1. 109–137.10.1007/BF00210378Search in Google Scholar
Kibble, R. 1997. “Complement anaphora and dynamic binding”. Proceedings of SALT 7. 258–275.10.3765/salt.v7i0.2783Search in Google Scholar
Kitagawa, Y. 1990. Anti-scrambling. (Manuscript, University of Rochester.)Search in Google Scholar
Ko, H. 2005. “Syntax of why-in-situ: Merge into [Spec, CP]”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23(4). 867–916.10.1007/s11049-004-5923-3Search in Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. and J. Shimoyama. 2002. “Indeterminate pronouns: The view from Japanese”. In Lee, C., F. Kiefer and M. Krifka (eds.), Contrastiveness in information structure, alternatives and scalar implicatures. Berlin: Springer. 123–143.Search in Google Scholar
Krifka, M. 1992. “A compositional semantics for multiple focus constructions”. In Jacobs, J. (ed.), Informationsstruktur und Grammatik. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 17–53.10.1007/978-3-663-12176-3_2Search in Google Scholar
Krifka, M. 2001. “Quantifying into question acts”. Natural Language Semantics 9(1). 1–40.10.1023/A:1017903702063Search in Google Scholar
Krifka, M. 2014. “Embedding illocutionary acts”. In Roeper, T. and M. Speas (eds.), Recursion: Complexity in cognition. Amsterdam: Springer. 59–87.10.1007/978-3-319-05086-7_4Search in Google Scholar
Krifka, M. 2015. “Bias in Commitment Space Semantics: Declarative questions, negated questions, and question tags”. Proceedings of SALT 25. 328–345.10.3765/salt.v25i0.3078Search in Google Scholar
Krifka, M. 2017. “Epistemic, evidential and discourse modalities in Commitment Space Semantics”. Talk at Workshop Non-at-issue-meaning and Information Structure. Oslo: Universität Oslo. 341–356.Search in Google Scholar
Krifka, M. 2019. “Layers of assertive clauses: Propositions, judgements, commitments, acts”. In Hartmann, J. and A. Wöllstein (eds.), Propositional arguments in cross-linguistic research: Theoretical and empirical issues. Tuebingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. 1–45.Search in Google Scholar
Kuno, S. and K. Takami. 1997. “Remarks on negative islands”. Linguistics Inquiry 28(2). 553–576.Search in Google Scholar
Lahiri, U. 2002. Questions and answers in embedded contexts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Lâu, S. 2010. Syntax of kam questions in Taiwanese. (MA thesis, National Taiwan Normal University.)Search in Google Scholar
Li, B. 2006. Chinese final particles and the syntax of the periphery. (Leiden University dissertation.)Search in Google Scholar
Li, X. 1998. Suzhou Fangyan Yufa Yanjiu [Studies of Suzhounese grammar]. Beijing: Peking University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Liu, D. 1991. “Question word in Suzhounese and the ke-VP construction”. Zhongguo Yuwen 1. 21–29.Search in Google Scholar
Liu, Y. 2016. Jiangsu Jingnei Fangyan KeVP Jushi Bijiao Yanjiu [A comparative study of the ke-VP construction in dialects of the Jiangsu Province]. (Nanjing University dissertation.)Search in Google Scholar
McCloskey, J. 2006. “Questions and questioning in a local English”. In Zanuttini, R., H. Campos, E. Herburger and P. Portner (eds.), Crosslinguistic research in syntax and semantics: Negation, tense, and clausal architecture. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 87–126.Search in Google Scholar
Moxey, L. and A. Sanford. 1993. Communicating quantities: A psychological perspective. New Jersey: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.Search in Google Scholar
Nicolae, A. 2013. Any questions?: Polarity as a window into the structure of questions. (Harvard University dissertation.)Search in Google Scholar
Nouwen, R. 2003. “Complement anaphora and interpretation”. Journal of Semantics 20(1). 73–113.10.1093/jos/20.1.73Search in Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. 2000. Phrasal movement and its kin. Cambridge, MA: The MIT press.10.7551/mitpress/5365.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Potts, C. 2004. A logic for conventional implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199273829.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Pruitt, K. and F. Roelofsen. 2011. Disjunctive questions: Prosody, syntax, and semantics. (Manuscript, UMass Amherst and University of Amsterdam.)Search in Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. 1981. “Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics in pragmatics and philosophy I”. Studia Philosophica 27(1). 53–94.10.21825/philosophica.82606Search in Google Scholar
Reis, M. 1997. “Zum syntaktischen Status unselbständiger Verbzweit-Sätze”. In Dürscheid, C., K. H. Ramers and M. Schwarz (eds.), Sprache im Fokus. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 121–144.Search in Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 1990. Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 2001. “On the position ‘Int(errogative)’ in the left periphery of the clause”. Current Studies in Italian Syntax 14. 267–296.Search in Google Scholar
Roelofsen, F. and D. Farkas. 2015. “Polarity particle responses as a window onto the interpretation of questions and assertions”. Language 91(2). 359–414.10.1353/lan.2015.0017Search in Google Scholar
Rooth, M. 1992. “A theory of focus interpretation”. Natural Language Semantics 1(1). 75–116.10.1007/BF02342617Search in Google Scholar
Schaffar, W. and L. Chen. 2001. “Yes-no questions in Mandarin and the theory of focus”. Linguistics 39(5). 837–870.10.1515/ling.2001.036Search in Google Scholar
Schmitt, V., E. Onea and F. Buch. 2017. “Restrictions on complement anaphora”. Proceedings of the 27th Semantics and Linguistic Theory. 212–229.10.3765/salt.v27i0.4146Search in Google Scholar
Shao, J. and J. Zhou. 2007. “A typological comparison of the yes-no questions in Chinese dialects”. Jinan Xuebao 127. 108–117.Search in Google Scholar
Shi, Q. 1990. “Shantou Fangyan de FanfuWenju” [Yes-no questions in Swatownese]. Zhongguo Yuwen 2. 21–29.Search in Google Scholar
Soh, H. Ling. 2005. “Wh-in-situ in Mandarin Chinese”. Linguistic Inquiry 36(1). 143–155.10.1162/ling.2005.36.1.143Search in Google Scholar
Stenius, E. 1967. “Mood and language-game”. Synthese 17. 254–274.10.1007/978-94-010-9614-0_18Search in Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, A. and F. Zwarts. 1993. “Weak islands and an algebraic semantics for scope taking”. Natural Language Semantics 1. 235–284.10.1007/978-94-011-5814-5_7Search in Google Scholar
Tomioka, S. 2007. “Pragmatics of LF intervention effects”. Journal of Pragmatics 39(9). 1570–1590.10.1016/j.pragma.2007.03.002Search in Google Scholar
Traugott, E. Closs. 1985. “Conditional markers”. In Haiman, J. (ed.), Iconicity in syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 289–307.10.1075/tsl.6.14cloSearch in Google Scholar
Tsai, W. D. 1994. “On nominal islands and LF extraction in Chinese”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12(1). 121–175.10.1007/BF00992747Search in Google Scholar
Uegaki, W. 2014. “Japanese alternative questions are disjunctions of polar questions”. Proceedings of SALT 24. 42–62.10.3765/salt.v24i0.2423Search in Google Scholar
Vanderveken, D. 1990. Meaning and speech acts, Volume I: Principle of language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Wechsler, S. 1991. “Verb second and illocutionary force”. In Leffel, K. and D. Bouchard (eds.), Views on phrase structure. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 177–191.10.1007/978-94-011-3196-4_10Search in Google Scholar
Woods, R. 2016. “Embedded inverted questions as embedded illocutionary acts”. Proceedings of 33rd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. 417–426.Search in Google Scholar
Woods, R. 2020. “A different perspective on embedded Verb Second: Unifying embedded root phenomena”. In Woods, R. and S. Wolfe (eds.), Rethinking Verb Second. London: Oxford University Press. 13–108.10.1093/oso/9780198844303.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Wu, J. 1997. “More on A-not-A questions: A model-theoretic approach”. The Proceedings of the 16th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. 463–477.Search in Google Scholar
Xu, B. and Z. Tang. 1988. Shanghai Shiqu Fangyan Zhi [A study of Shanghainese as spoken in the metropolitan area of Shanghai]. Shanghai: Shanghai Education Press.Search in Google Scholar
Xu, L. 2000. “The topic-prominence parameter”. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 20. 21–41.10.21248/zaspil.20.2000.77Search in Google Scholar
Xu, L. and D. Liu. 1998. Huati de Jiegou yu Gongneng [The structure and function of topic]. Shanghai: Shanghai Jiaoyu Chubanshe.Search in Google Scholar
Xu, L. and J. Shao. 1999. “‘A-V’ jiqi xiangguan yiwen jushi bijiao yanjiu” [A comparative study of the a-V question and related construction types]. Zhongguo Yuwen 3. 1–19.Search in Google Scholar
Zhang, M. 1990. Hanyu Fangyan Fanfu Wenju de Leixingxue Yanjiu [A typological study of the yes-no questions in Chinese dialects]. (Peking University dissertation.)Search in Google Scholar
Zhu, D. 1982. Yufa Jiangyi [Lecture notes on grammar]. Beijing: The Commercial Press.Search in Google Scholar
© 2022 Faculty of English, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland
