A semantic account of quantifier-induced intervention effects in Chinese why-questions

Jin, Dawei

doi:10.1007/s10988-019-09270-x

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 82 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They found that extractions out of adjuncts show the same contrast across constructions, with interaction effects in wh-questions but not in topicalizations. Kush et al (2018;2019) showed further results on extractions out of adjuncts in English (similar results can be found in Sprouse et al 2016;Gibson et al 2021). Figure 2 illustrates many of these findings.…”

Section: The Discourse-clash Approachsupporting

confidence: 57%

“…Empirical studies corroborate this dichotomy between focusing and topicalizing fronting constructions in English (experimental studies by Sprouse et al, 2016, andAbeillé et al, 2020a), French (corpus studies by ; experimental studies by Abeillé et al, 2020a;and Abeillé et al, 2020b) Italian (experimental studies by Sprouse et al, 2016) and Norwegian (experimental studies by Kush et al, 2018;2019).…”

Section: The Discourse-clash Approachmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…Furthermore, Abeillé et al (2020b) compared relative clauses with another focalizing construction, it-clefts in English and c'est-clefts in French: they reproduced their previous results on relative clauses (no interaction), whereas clefts in both languages showed interaction effects. In Norwegian, Kush et al (2018;2019) tested a series of potential islands environments first as wh-questions, then as topicalizations. They found that extractions out of adjuncts show the same contrast across constructions, with interaction effects in wh-questions but not in topicalizations.…”

Section: The Discourse-clash Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The double gap effect may be best explained by a processing approach. For example, Chaves proposes that the gap-filling process reactivates the referent in the comprehender's memory, such that accessing this piece of information is later facilitated (Chaves, 2012a;Chaves & Dery, 2014, 2019Culicover & Winkler, in press). This is supported by independent evidence from processing in Vasishth and Lewis (2006).…”

Section: "Parasitic" Gapsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Structural, Functional, and Processing Perspectives on Linguistic Island Effects

Liu

Winckel

Abeillé

et al. 2022

Annu. Rev. Linguist.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ross (1967) observed that “island” structures like “Who do you think [NP the gift from __] prompted the rumor?” or “Who did you hear [NP the statement [S that the CEO promoted __]]?” are not acceptable, despite having what seem to be plausible meanings in some contexts. Ross (1967) and Chomsky (1973) hypothesized that the source of the unacceptability is in the syntax. Here, we summarize how theories of discourse, frequency, and memory from the literature might account for such effects. We suggest that there is only one island structure—a class of coordination islands—that is best explained by a syntactic/semantic constraint. We speculate that all other island structures are likely to be explained in terms of discourse, frequency, and memory. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Linguistics, Volume 8 is January 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

show abstract

Section: The Discourse-clash Approachsupporting

confidence: 57%

Section: The Discourse-clash Approachmentioning

confidence: 83%

Section: The Discourse-clash Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: "Parasitic" Gapsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Structural, Functional, and Processing Perspectives on Linguistic Island Effects

Liu

Winckel

Abeillé

et al. 2022

Annu. Rev. Linguist.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“… 2 This misanalysis has many followers (see, among others, Tsai 2008; Yang 2012; Jin 2017, 2020). Soh (2005) and Ko (2005) are chosen here because of the explicit character of their claims and the influence they have had on subsequent studies on wh -in-situ languages, as evidenced by their being cited frequently.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Nobody there? On the non-existence ofnobodyin Mandarin Chinese and related issues

Paul

2021

Can. J. Linguist.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present article demonstrates how the so far unchallenged misanalysis within Chinese linguistics of a few, but central, data points has led to a distorted picture biasing, inter alia, the general typology of wh-in-situ languages as well as the crosslinguistic study of Quantifier Phrases. This is the case for méi yǒu rén ‘not exist person’, hěnshǎo yǒu rén ‘rarely exist person’, and zhǐ yǒu DP ‘only exist DP’, which are not nominal projections equivalent of ‘nobody’, ‘only DP’, and ‘few people’ as currently assumed, but existential constructions: ‘there isn't anybody’, ‘there is only DP’, and ‘there are rarely people’. In addition, a subset of speakers has reanalyzed hěnshǎo (yǒu) rén with a covert yǒu ‘exist’ as a QP hěnshǎo rén ‘few people’. A corpus study highlights the limited distribution of hěnshǎo rén ‘few people’, which shows that it is not on a par with its antonym hěn duō rén ‘many people’.

show abstract

Intervention Effects in Mandarin Chinese—An Experimental Study

Jin,

Yan

2024

Journal of Semantics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a formal judgment study of Mandarin intervention effects, that is, structures containing a wh-phrase c-commanded by a focus-sensitive or a quantificational expression. There has been significant disagreement in the literature regarding which type of wh-phrases gives rise to intervention, as well as which one among the c-commanding scopal operators is an intervener. There are competing empirical claims in the literature, which have to this day not been subject to experimental evaluation. The results of our study show that wh-nominals and wh-adverbials exhibit a similar pattern of degraded acceptability. Our results further show a clear distinction between why and other wh-phrases, favoring Ko’s (2005) idea that a separate, why-induced scope effect is disentangled from the garden-variety case of wh-intervention.

show abstract

A semantic account of quantifier-induced intervention effects in Chinese why-questions

Cited by 5 publications

References 82 publications

Structural, Functional, and Processing Perspectives on Linguistic Island Effects

Structural, Functional, and Processing Perspectives on Linguistic Island Effects

Nobody there? On the non-existence ofnobodyin Mandarin Chinese and related issues

Intervention Effects in Mandarin Chinese—An Experimental Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About