Difference between revisions of "Discourse-linked interrogative phrase"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Haspelmath (talk | contribs) (Created page with 'A '''discourse-linked (or d-linked) interrogative phrase''' is an interrogative phrase like ''which man'' that implies the existence of a context set of familiar entities of th...') |
Haspelmath (talk | contribs) m |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
(3) a. Mary asked which man [e read which book]? | (3) a. Mary asked which man [e read which book]? | ||
b. Mary asked which book [which man read e]? | b. Mary asked which book [which man read e]? | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===References=== | ||
| + | |||
| + | *Enç, M. (1991). The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry, 22, 1–26. | ||
| + | *Pesetsky, D. (1987). Wh-in-Situ: Movement and unselective binding. In: E. Reuland & A. ter Meulen (Eds.), The representation of (in)definitess(98–129). Cambridge:MIT Press. | ||
| + | |||
{{dc}} | {{dc}} | ||
[[Category:Syntax]] | [[Category:Syntax]] | ||
[[Category:Semantics]] | [[Category:Semantics]] | ||
Latest revision as of 15:23, 5 July 2009
A discourse-linked (or d-linked) interrogative phrase is an interrogative phrase like which man that implies the existence of a context set of familiar entities of the type denoted by the nominal (e.g., a set of already familiar men) (Pesetsky 1987, Enç 1991). They contrast with non-discourse linked interrogative pronouns such as who, which carry no necessary implication about familiar discourse entities.
Comment
The distinction between discourse-linked and non-discourse-linked interrogative phrases has been shown to be relevant for syntax in some cases. As Pesetsky (1987) noted, discourse-linked phrases can violate superiority:
(2) a. Mary asked [who[e read what]]?
b. *Mary asked [what[who read e]]?
(3) a. Mary asked which man [e read which book]?
b. Mary asked which book [which man read e]?
References
- Enç, M. (1991). The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry, 22, 1–26.
- Pesetsky, D. (1987). Wh-in-Situ: Movement and unselective binding. In: E. Reuland & A. ter Meulen (Eds.), The representation of (in)definitess(98–129). Cambridge:MIT Press.
