“Discourse features”, syntactic displacement and the status of contrast

Horvath, Julia

doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2008.07.011

Cited by 78 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We now present additional arguments in support of Durrleman's thesis, adapting diagnostic tests discussed in Horvath (2010). We then develop a syntactic implementation of focus movement, combining elements from Durrleman (2008) and Horvath (2010).…”

Section: Jc Focus Is Not a Cleftmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…Kiss 1998). The following discourse fragment, drawn from Horvath (2010Horvath ( : 1359, illustrates this effect. In A's answer to the question in Fronted focus in JC also induces an exhaustiveness entailment, as we saw in (23) and (24).…”

Section: Jc Focus Is Not a Cleftmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…We argue that focus/wh a is an exhaustiveness marker merged with a constituent that undergoes movement to the left periphery (see Horvath 2010, on which the core of our analysis is modeled). Durrleman (2008) argues that if a is a copula, then it requires a subject.…”

Section: Jc Focus Is Not a Cleftmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…We then develop a syntactic implementation of focus movement, combining elements from Durrleman (2008) and Horvath (2010). Horvath (2010) argues that it is not a focus feature as such that drives alleged "focus fronting," but a formal feature on an E(xhaustive) I(dentification) operator. 6 This operator is optionally merged with a constituent and attracted by a leftperipheral functional head EI 0 (as originally proposed in Durrleman 2008, using different terminology).…”

Section: Jc Focus Is Not a Cleftmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…7 The EI operator is responsible for an identification operation performed on the membership set of a constituent lying within its c-command domain. It identifies the exhaustive, that is, maximal, proper subset of this set for which the predicate holds (see Szabolcsi 1981;Kenesei 1986;Horvath 2010).…”

Section: Jc Focus Is Not a Cleftmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Focus and wh in Jamaican Creole: Movement and Exhaustiveness

Shlonsky¹,

Durrlemann-Tame²

2015

Beyond Functional Sequence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Jc Focus Is Not a Cleftmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Jc Focus Is Not a Cleftmentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Jc Focus Is Not a Cleftmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Jc Focus Is Not a Cleftmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Jc Focus Is Not a Cleftmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Focus and wh in Jamaican Creole: Movement and Exhaustiveness

Shlonsky¹,

Durrlemann-Tame²

2015

Beyond Functional Sequence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pied‐Piping

Horvath

2017

The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Second Edition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“Pied‐piping” has been viewed throughout the evolution of generative grammar as involving the displacement of a constituent that is larger than, and properly contains, the element the particular movement operation is normally targeting (such as a wh‐ word contained within some larger phrase, e.g., which (boy) / whose in which boy's father/whose friends ). Being an effect directly associated with movement operations, its status and accounts have undergone significant shifts in the course of the evolution of the theory of grammar. The chapter provides a comprehensive overview of pied‐piping phenomena and discusses proposed analyses along with the theoretical contexts in which they arose. It lays out the variety of pied‐piping effects and central generalizations observed in the literature of the past decades regarding what pretheoretically can be considered pied‐piping structures. Starting with Ross' Pied‐Piping Convention, the chapter critically assesses the status and treatments of (apparent) pied‐piping, from Ross’ stipulation of a split between what triggers movement and what size constituents end up moving, via the Government and Binding model's “feature percolation” mechanisms and “Move α,” to potential accommodation of pied‐piping effects within the Minimalist Program's restrictive framework, relying only on projection, not feature percolation crossing maximal projections, and on “Agree.” The chapter delineates the descriptive dimensions of pied‐piping primarily based on wh ‐movement. It examines attested construction‐specific variation – namely, wh ‐pied‐piping in restrictive and non‐restrictive relative clauses, wh ‐questions, and free relatives – and explores structural properties of the phenomenon such as the phrase‐internal position of the pied‐piper, the category types of pied‐piped phrases, and non‐ wh ‐pied‐pipers. The related theoretical issues assessed include the locality/structural limitations on what can induce a pied‐piping effect, the “repair” nature of pied‐piping, the status of marked “massive” pied‐piping, and attested parametric variation. The chapter discusses feature percolation approaches and outlines two recent alternatives dispensing with the latter within a minimalist perspective.

show abstract

Relationship Between Discourse Notions and the Lexicon: From the Perspective of Chinese Information Structure

2020

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“Discourse features”, syntactic displacement and the status of contrast

Cited by 78 publications

References 18 publications

Focus and wh in Jamaican Creole: Movement and Exhaustiveness

Focus and wh in Jamaican Creole: Movement and Exhaustiveness

Pied‐Piping

Relationship Between Discourse Notions and the Lexicon: From the Perspective of Chinese Information Structure

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About