Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistic Variation
Vol. 22:1 (2022) ► pp.1–77

(No) variation in the grammar of alternatives

ORCID logo | University of Tübingen
| The University of Manchester
| University of Tübingen
| University of Tübingen
| University of Tübingen
| University of Tübingen
| University of Tübingen
The paper reports the results of an in-depth crosslinguistic study of intervention effects and the grammar of alternatives in a typologically diverse sample of five languages: Palestinian Arabic (Afro-Asiatic, Semitic), Russian (Indo-European, Slavic), Samoan (Austronesian, Oceanic), Turkish (Altaic, Turkic), and Yoruba (Niger-Congo, Defoid). In all of these languages, we find an interesting asymmetry in that focus evaluation interrupts question evaluation and causes an intervention effect, but not vice versa. We take our data to inform the crosslinguistic analysis of two alternative-evaluating operators, the squiggle operator and the question operator. To capture the observed absence of variation, we propose two semantic universals: The squiggle operator unselectively evaluates all alternatives in its scope. The question operator, on the other hand, is selective.
Keywords: alternative semantics, focus, interrogatives, multiple questions, disjunctive questions, intervention effects, Baker ambiguities, crosslinguistic variation, fieldwork
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • 1.The grammar of alternatives – Informal version
    • 1.1Association with alternatives
    • 1.2Intervention effects
    • 1.3Other associations with Q
    • 1.4Crosslinguistic variation in the grammar of alternatives
  • 2.The data from the crosslinguistic study
    • 2.1Methodology
    • 2.2The crosslinguistic data
      • 2.2.1Palestinian Arabic
        • Preliminaries and structural prerequisites
        • Intervention data
      • 2.2.2Russian
        • Preliminaries and structural prerequisites
        • Intervention data
      • 2.2.3Samoan
        • Preliminaries and structural prerequisites
        • Intervention configurations
      • 2.2.4Turkish
        • Preliminaries and structural prerequisites
        • Intervention configurations
      • 2.2.5Yoruba
        • Preliminaries and structural prerequisites
        • Intervention configurations
    • 2.3Summary of results
  • 3.Analysis
    • 3.1Technical implementation using distinguished variables
    • 3.2Applying the framework to the crosslinguistic data
      • Example 1.Intervention effect in a wh-in-situ question in Turkish
      • Example 2.Absence of intervention in focus association across a question in Russian
  • 4.Connecting the analysis to literature on the grammar of alternatives
  • 5.Discussion and conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 22 March 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.19010.how
References (119)
References
Adesola, Oluseye. 2005. Pronouns and null operators: A-bar dependencies and relations in Yoruba. New Brunswick: Rutgers The State University of New Jersey dissertation.Google Scholar
. 2006. On the absence of superiority and weak-crossover effects in Yoruba. Linguistic Inquiry 27(2). 309–318. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alonso-Ovalle, Luis. 2006. Disjunction in alternative semantics. Amherst: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Google Scholar
Arslan, Zekiye C. 1999. Approaches to wh-structures in Turkish. İstanbul: Boğaziçi Üniversitesi M.A. thesis.Google Scholar
Awobuluyi, Oladele. 1978. Essentials of Yoruba grammar. Ibadan: Oxford University Press Nigeria.Google Scholar
Aygen, Gülşat. 2007. Q-Particle. Journal of Linguistics and Literature 4(1). 1–30.Google Scholar
Bade, Nadine, & Konstantin Sachs. 2019. EXH passes on alternatives: a comment on Fox and Spector (2018). Natural Language Semantics 27(1). 19–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bailyn, John F. 2012. The syntax of Russian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, Carl L. 1968. Indirect questions in English. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois dissertation.Google Scholar
1970. Notes on the description of English questions: The role of an abstract question morpheme. Foundations of Language 6(2). 197–219.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 2010. Formal generative typology. The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, 285–312.Google Scholar
Bamgbose, Ayo. 2000. A grammar of Yoruba. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bechhofer, Robin. 1985. WHO said WHAT to WHOM? … in Turkish. In Susumo Kuno (ed.), Harvard studies in syntax and semantics, 349–404. Cambridge: Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Beaver, David & Brady Clark. 2003. Always and only: Why not all focus-sensitive operators are alike. Natural Language Semantics 11(4). 323–362. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beaver, David I. & Brady Z. Clark. 2008. Sense and sensitivity: How focus determines meaning. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beck, Sigrid. 1996. Wh-constructions and transparent Logical Form. Tübingen: Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen dissertation.Google Scholar
. 2006. Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 14(1). 1–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Focus-sensitive operators. In Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds.), The Oxford handbook of information structure, 227–250. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. To appear. Parameters of crosslinguistic variation in semantics. In Daniel Gutzmann, Lisa Matthewson, Cecile Meier, Hotze Rullmann & Thomas Zimmermann (eds.), The Blackwell companion to semantics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Beck, Sigrid & Shin-Sook Kim. 2006. Intervention effects in alternative questions. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 9(3). 165–208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beck, Sigrid; Svetlana Krasikova, Daniel Fleischer, Remus Gergel, Stefan Hofstetter, Christiane Savelsberg, John Vanderelst & Elisabeth Villalta. 2009. Crosslinguistic variation in comparison constructions. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 91. 1–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beck, Sigrid; Toshiko Oda & Koji Sugisaki. 2004. Parametric variation in the semantics of comparison: Japanese versus English. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 13(4). 289–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beck, Sigrid & Shravan Vasishth. 2009. Multiple focus. Journal of Semantics 26(2). 159–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berezovskaya, Polina. 2020. Comparing comparatives: new perspectives from fieldwork and processing. Tübingen: Eberhard Karls Universität dissertation.Google Scholar
Berezovskaya, Polina & Anna Howell. 2020. (No) variation in the grammar of alternatives: Intervention effects in Russian. Proceedings of Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 261, 1–19.Google Scholar
Berezovskaya, Polina & Vera Hohaus. 2015. The crosslinguistic inventory of phrasal comparative operators: Evidence from Russian. Proceedings of Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 221. 1–22.Google Scholar
Biezma, Maria & Kyle Rawlins. 2015. Alternative questions. Language and Linguistics compass 9(11). 361–406. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bochnak, M. Ryan. 2013. Crosslinguistic variation in the semantics of comparatives. Chicago: University of Chicago dissertation.Google Scholar
Bochnak, M. Ryan; Vera Hohaus & Anne Mucha. 2019. Variation in tense and aspect, and the temporal Interpretation of complement clauses. Journal of Semantics 36(3). 407–452. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2002. On Multiple Wh-Fronting. Linguistic Inquiry 33(3). 351–383. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bowler, Margaret. 2016. The status of degrees in Warlpiri. Proceedings of TripleA 21. 1–17.Google Scholar
Braun, Julia. 2016. Intervention effects in Palestinian Arabic. Tübingen: Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen B.A. thesis.Google Scholar
. 2018. Intervention effects in Palestinian Arabic: How question formation becomes degraded. Proceedings of TripleA 41. 65–78.Google Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin & Vivan Lin. 2001. Discontinuous QPs and LF interference effects in Passamaquoddy. Proceedings of the Semantics of Under-Represented Languages of the Americas 51. 20–28.Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel & Katharina Hartmann. 2001. The syntax and semantics of focus-sensitive particles in German. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 19(2). 229–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cable, Seth. 2010. The grammar of Q: Q-Particles, wh-Movement, and pied-piping. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Beyond the past, present, and future: Towards the semantics of graded tense in Gĩkũyũ. Natural Language Semantics 21(3). 219–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Calhoun, Sasha. 2015. The interaction of prosody and syntax in Samoan focus marking. Lingua 165(2). 205–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Calhoun, Sascha. 2017. Exclusives, equatives and prosodic phrases in Samoan. Glossa 2(1), 111. 1–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chen, Sihwei; Vera Hohaus, Rebecca Laturnus, Meagan Louie, Lisa Matthewson, Hotze Rullmann, Ori Simchen, Claire K. Turner & Jozina Vander Klok. 2017. Past possibility crosslinguistically: Evidence from 12 languages. In Ana Arregui, Maria-Luisa Rivero & Andres P. Salanova (eds.), Modality across syntactic categories, 235–287. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dayal, Veneeta. 1996. Locality in wh-quantification: Questions and relative clauses in Hindi. London: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deal, Amy Rose & Vera Hohaus. 2019. Vague predicates, crisp judgments. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 231. 347–364.Google Scholar
Drubig, H. Bernhard. 1994. Island constraints and the syntactic nature of focus and association with focus. Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340 “Sprachtheoretische Grundlagen für die Computerlinguistik” 511. 1–62.Google Scholar
Durmaz, Şehriban. 2016. Echo questions and the grammar of alternatives: A contrastive analysis. Tübingen: Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen Zulassungsarbeit.Google Scholar
Durmaz, Şehriban. 2017. Echo questions and the grammar of alternatives: A contrastive analysis. Tübingen: Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen M.A. thesis.Google Scholar
Eilam, Aviad. 2011. Explorations in the informational component. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania dissertation.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, Peter. 2013. Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik. Berlin: Metzler.Google Scholar
Erlewine, Michael Y. & Hadas Kotek. 2017. Movement and alternatives don’t mix: Evidence from Japanese. Proceedings of the Amsterdam Colloquium 211. 245–254.Google Scholar
Erlewine, Michael. Y. & Hadas Kotek. 2018. Focus association by movement: Evidence from Tanglewood. Linguistic Inquiry 49(3). 441–463. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, Danny. 2007. Free choice and the theory of scalar implicatures. In Uli Sauerland & Penka Stateva (eds.), Presupposition and Implicature in Compositional Semantics, 71–120. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, Danny & Benjamin Spector. 2018. Economy and embedded exhaustification. Natural Language Semantics 26(1). 1–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Göksel, Aslı & A. Sumru Özsoy. 2003. dA: A focus/topic-associated clitic in Turkish. Lingua 113(11). 1143–1167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gracanin-Yüksek, Martina. 2016. Alternative questions in Turkish. Dilbilim Arastirmalari 2016/11. 39–68.Google Scholar
Haida, Andreas. 2007. The indefiniteness and focusing of wh-words. Berlin: Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin dissertation.Google Scholar
Haida, Andreas & Sophie Repp. 2013. The intervention effect: Focus alternatives or indefinite alternatives? Experimental evidence. Proceedings of the Amsterdam Colloquium 191. 131–138.Google Scholar
Hamblin, Charles L. 1973. Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language 10(1). 41–53.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene & Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hohaus, Vera. 2015. Context and composition: How presuppositions restrict the interpretation of free variables. Tübingen: Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen dissertation.Google Scholar
Hohaus, Vera & Anna Howell. 2015. Alternative semantics for focus and questions: Evidence from Samoan. Proceedings of the Austronesian Fomal Linguistics Association 211. 69–86.Google Scholar
Hohaus, Vera & M. Ryan Bochnak. 2020. The grammar of degree: Gradability across languages. Annual Reviews in Linguistics 61. 235–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Honcoop, Martin. 1998. Dynamic excursions on weak islands. Leiden: Universiteit Leiden dissertation.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 1972. On the semantic properties of logical operators in English. Los Angeles: University of California dissertation.Google Scholar
Howell, Anna. 2020. Alternative semantics across languages: case studies on disjunctive questions and free choice items in Samoan and Yoruba. Tübingen: Eberhard Karls Universität dissertation.Google Scholar
. 2016. A Hamblin semantics for alternative questions in Yoruba. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 201. 359–376.Google Scholar
Huang, C. T. James. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.Google Scholar
Isleem, Nasser M. 2010. Colloquial Palestinian Arabic: An introduction to the spoken dialect. Norwell: Alucen.Google Scholar
İşsever, Selçuk. 2003. Information structure in Turkish: The word order–prosody interface. Lingua 113(11). 1025–1053. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. A syntactic account of wh-in situ in Turkish. In Sıla Ay, Özgür Aydın, İclâl Ergenç, Seda Gökmen, Selçuk İşsever & Dilek Peçenek (eds.), Essays on Turkish linguistics, 103–112. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Joachim. 1983. Fokus und Skalen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kamali, Beste & Lena Karvovskaya. 2013. Also in Turkish and Ishkashimi. Proceedings of the Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics 81. 181–186.Google Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri. 1977. Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1(1). 3–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kelepir, Meltem. 2001. Topics in Turkish syntax: Clausal structure and scope. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.Google Scholar
Kim, Shin-Sook. 2002. Intervention effects are focus effects. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 101. 615–628.Google Scholar
Kitagawa, Yoshihisa; Katsuo Tamaoka and Satoshi Tomioka. 2013. “Prosodic Matters in Intervention Effects in Japanese: An Experimental Study,” Lingua 1241, 41–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard. 1991. The meaning of focus particles: A comparative perspective. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 1993. Focus particles. In J. Jacobs, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld & Theo Vennemann (eds.), Syntax: Ein internationales Handbuch, 978–987. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin. 1984. Case Marking, Agreement, and Empty Categories in Turkish. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
. 1997a. Turkish grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 1997b. On the syntax and morphology of relative clauses in Turkish. In Yazı Kuruluadına & Ahmet Kocaman (eds.), Dilbilim Ara ̧stırmaları, 24–51. Ankara: Kebıkeç Yayınları.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin; Susumu Kuno & Engin Sezer. 1980. A note on criss-crossling double dislocation. Harvard Studies in Syntax and Semantics 31. 185–242.Google Scholar
Kotek, Hadas & Michael Y. Erlewine. 2016. Covert pied-piping in English multiple wh-questions. Linguistic Inquiry 47(4). 669–693. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1991. The representation of focus. In Arnim von Stechow & Michael Herwig (eds.), Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung, 825–835. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1992. A compositional semantics for multiple focus constructions. In Joachim Jacobs (ed.), Informationsstruktur und Grammatik, 17–53. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1999. Additive particles under stress. Proceedings of SALT 81. 111–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Association with focus phrases. In Valerie Molnar & Susanne Winkler, The architecture of focus, 105–136. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kural, Murat. 1993. Scrambling and mixed positions in Turkish. Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 221. 259–272.Google Scholar
Lutz, Uli; Gereon Müller & Arnim von Stechow. (2000, eds.). Wh-scope marking. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa. 2004. On the methodology of semantic fieldwork. International Journal of American Linguistics 70(4). 369–451. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Temporal semantics in a superficially tenseless language. Linguistics and Philosophy 6(29). 673–713.Google Scholar
. 2011. Methods in crosslinguistic formal semantics. In Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul H. Portner (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, vol. 11, 268–284. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa & Kai von Fintel. 2008. Universals in semantics. The Linguistic Review 25(1–2). 139–201.Google Scholar
Mayr, Clemens. 2013. Consequences of an alternatives semantics for the analysis of intervention effects. In Anamaria Fălăuş (ed.), Alternatives in semantics, 123–149. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Intervention effects and Additivity. Journal of Semantics 31(4). 513–554. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McLoughlin, Leslie J. 1982. Colloquial Arabic (Levantine). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mosel, Ulrike & Even Hovdhaugen. 1992. Samoan reference grammar. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.Google Scholar
Özçelik, Öner & Miho Nagai. 2011. Multiple subject positions: A case of perfect match between syntax and prosody. Proceedings of WCCFL 281. 303–312.Google Scholar
Özsoy, Sumru & Aslı Göksel. 2003. Focus in Turkish. Lingua 113(11): 1021–1023. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ogihara, Toshiyuki & Yael Sharvit. 2012. Embedded tenses. In Robert I. Binnick (ed.), The Oxford handbook of tense and aspect, 638–668. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 2000. Phrasal movement and its kin. Cambridge: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Renans, Agata; Malte Zimmermann & Markus Greif. 2011. Questionnaire on focus semantics. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam.Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with focus. Amherst: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Google Scholar
. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1(1). 75–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1996. Focus. In Shalom Lappin (ed.), The handbook of contemporary semantic theory, 271–298. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ruangjaroon, Sugunya. 2002. Thai wh in-situ . Paper presented at the 14th Northwest Linguistics Conference, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby.
Rudin, Catherine. 1988. On multiple questions and multiple wh-fronting. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6(4). 445–501. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shlonsky, Ur. 1997. Clause structure and word order in Hebrew and Arabic: An essay in comparative semitic syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
von Stechow, Arnim. 1991. Focusing and background operators. In Werner Abraham (ed.), Discourse particles: Descriptive and theoretical investigations on the logical, syntactic and pragmatic properties of discourse particles in German, 37–83. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stepanov, Arthur. 1998. On wh-fronting in Russian. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of North East Linguistic Society 281. 453–467.Google Scholar
Sudhoff, Stefan. 2010. Focus particles in German: Syntax, prosody, and information structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomioka, Satoshi. 2007. Pragmatics of LF intervention effects: Japanese and Korean wh-interrogatives. Journal of Pragmatics 39(9). 1570–1590. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Maximality mimics exhaustivity: A case study of dake ‘only’ in Japanese. Poster presented at GLOW in Asia XI, University of Singapore, Singapore.
Tonhauser, Judith. 2011. Temporal reference in Paraguayan Guaraní, a tenseless language. Linguistics and philosophy 34(3). 257–303. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Crosslinguistic temporal references. Annual Review of Linguistics 11. 129–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Uegaki, Wataru. 2014. Japanese alternative questions are disjunctions of polar questions. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 241. 42–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wagner, Michael. 2006. Association by movement: Evidence from NPI-licensing. Natural Language Semantics 14(4). 297–324. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winans, Lauren. 2019. Alternatives and disjunction in Egyptian Arabic. In Klaus von Heusinger, V. Edgar Onea Gaspar & Malte Zimmermann (eds.), Questions in discourse, 231–285. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Wold, Dag. 1996. Long distance selective binding: The case of focus. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 61. 311–328. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zifonun, Gisela; Ursula Brauße, Ludger Hoffmann, Bruno Strecker, & Joachim Ballweg. 1997. Grammatik der deutschen Sprache, vol. 11. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Malte & Edgar Onea. 2011. Focus marking and focus interpretation. Lingua 121(11). 1651–1766. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Hohaus, Vera
2024. Language change and the Degree Semantics Parameter. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.