Syntactic doubling and deletion as a source of variation

Barbiers, Sjef

doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198702894.003.0010

Cited by 15 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Phrases like [ DP only ROSSINI] are a big problem, and their existence has even been denied. The latter, see Reis (2005) and Barbiers (2010Barbiers ( , 2014, assumes an extension by which FPs can also be adjoined to non-sentential major constituents such as DP, PP etc. Rochemont (2018), following Bayer (1999), uses the term "constituent only" which he distinguishes from "adverbial only".…”

Section: The Particle Problem In Syntaxmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To return to the continental Germanic side, Barbiers (2010Barbiers ( , 2014 observes doubling of FPs in colloquial Dutch, especially with the FP maar ('only'). Consider ( 22).…”

Section: A Note On Focus Particle Doublingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Referring toHaegeman (1995), he proposes SHA as the mechanism that "fuses" the two occurrences of the particle syntactically. 6 Approaches to FPs in which the FP can freely team up with non-propositional XPs and nevertheless find its way to propositional scope have been suggested byBarbiers (2014) and bySmeets and Wagner (2017).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Why doubling discourse particles?

Bayer¹

2019

Linguistic Variation: Structure and Interpretation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: The Particle Problem In Syntaxmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To return to the continental Germanic side, Barbiers (2010Barbiers ( , 2014 observes doubling of FPs in colloquial Dutch, especially with the FP maar ('only'). Consider ( 22).…”

Section: A Note On Focus Particle Doublingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Why doubling discourse particles?

Bayer¹

2019

Linguistic Variation: Structure and Interpretation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…24 Adjunction to arguments, DP, PP and CPs with an argument role is excluded. The "mixed camp" as represented by Bayer (1996Bayer ( , 1999, Reis (2005), Barbiers (2014) and a few others acknowledges adjunction of FP to the propositional domain vP but admits also adjunction to other major constituents such as DP, PP and CP. One problem with this account is that adverbs do not freely adjoin to arbitrary constituents.…”

Section: Integrating Focus Particlesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… See Jacobs (1983), with a somewhat different orientationBüring and Hartmann (2001), Kleemann-Krämer (2010), and more recentlyHole (2015). 15 This view has been defended inBayer (1996Bayer ( , 1999 and inReis (2005) for German, and inBarbiers (2014) for Dutch.Criterial Freezing in the syntax of particles…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Criterial Freezing in the syntax of particles

Bayer¹

2018

Freezing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this chapter, it will be shown that in the grammar of German, discourse as well as focus particles are part of the functional structure of the clause, and that in the unmarked case both types of particles take scope exactly where they are merged. Their scope must not be changed in the ongoing derivation. In other words, they are "frozen in place". A challenge comes from those cases in which particles form constituents with sub-sentential phrases such as my bike or in which village, i.e. phrases which do not qualify as scope domains. While co-constituency with sub-sentential phrases is a widely known property of focus particles, corresponding constellations with discourse particles are less widely known and therefore more challenging. Due to this, the focus of the chapter will be on discourse particles. In part 1, I will present what I take to be the current base-line of a syntactic-semantic representation of discourse particles (in German and hopefully beyond). Part 2 develops an account of discourse particles in wh-questions and their dependence on interrogative force. Part 3 shows how discourse particles can directly combine with wh-phrases, and how the movement of phrases that are composed in such a way and their scope properties can be integrated into the account developed in part 2. Importantly, I will show that their scope freezes in a position lower than the position seen in surface structure. This finding defines the goal of our consideration of focus particles. Part 4 integrates focus particles and shows that the analysis gets close to a unified account of focus particles and discourse particles. The perspective and advantage of a unified theory of particles is commented on in section 5. Section 6 draws some conclusions.

show abstract

Article Doubling

Lekakou

2017

The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Second Edition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter deals with the doubling of the definite and indefinite article. After a brief introduction to the syntactic and semantic function of (in)definite articles and to the relevance of doubling for syntactic and semantic research, I review the main instantiations of each type of phenomenon. I deal with definite doubling as it is attested in North Germanic languages, in Modern Greek, and in Hebrew. Doubling occurs in these varieties predominantly when adjectival modification is involved; it is obligatory in Hebrew and in certain Northern Germanic languages, and optional in Greek, where it incurs semantic effects related to the restrictive interpretation of the adjective. In the case of Hebrew and Northern Germanic, the debate has revolved around the choice between head movement and phrasal movement within a determiner phrase (DP) analysis of nominals and around the status of the doubling elements; for Hebrew, the idea of a concord relation between the doubling elements has also been exploited. In the case of Greek, major points of controversy have been whether doubling involves an underlying predicative structure and a DP‐internal focus projection. Indefinite doubling is much less widespread cross‐linguistically. It is known to occur in some dialectal variants of Swedish and Norwegian, where it can be argued to involve a predication structure. A different instance of indefinite doubling occurs in Bavarian in the presence of quantificational elements. In this final case, doubling is argued to involve non‐identical elements. The suggestion is made that indefinite doubling as such does not exist at all.

show abstract

Syntactic doubling and deletion as a source of variation

Cited by 15 publications

References 6 publications

Why doubling discourse particles?

Why doubling discourse particles?

Criterial Freezing in the syntax of particles

Article Doubling

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About