| 81 |
Obligatory reconstruction and the meaning of traces
|
|
|
|
In: http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/2E5MDU5Y/motrSingle.pdf
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 82 |
On Quantifier Raising in German
|
|
|
|
In: http://edocs.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/volltexte/2009/12804/pdf/SAUERLAND_On_Quantifier_Raising_in_German.pdf
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 83 |
Decomposing Questions Acts
|
|
|
|
In: http://www.zas.gwz-berlin.de/fileadmin/material/40-60-puzzles-for-krifka/pdf/sauerland.pdf
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 84 |
1.1 Necessary Condition for the Licensing of Focus
|
|
|
|
In: http://edocs.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/volltexte/2009/12813/pdf/SAUERLAND_The_Content_of_Pronouns_Evidence_from_Focus.pdf
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 85 |
A Contrast to a Trace
|
|
|
|
In: http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/TY3MTljM/wccfl01.pdf
|
|
Abstract:
For movement, such as quantifier raising, the three different structures illus-trated in (1) are discussed in the recent literature. (1) A girl danced with every boy a. [every boy]x a girl danced with x (copy + replace) b. [every boy]x a girl danced with [every boy] (copy) c. [every boy]x a girl danced with [thex boy] (copy + modify) In this paper, I’ll call the proposal illustrated by (1a) the copy+replace theory since the movement is analyzed as first copying the moving phrase followed by replacing the moving phrase with a trace in the base position of movement. Chomsky (1993) and Fox (1999) argue against the copy+replace theory (1a) on the basis of Condition C data that show that moved material can behave as if it occupied the base position of movement. This behavior would, for example, be expected on the copy theory of movement illustrated by (1b), which also seems conceptually simpler than the copy+replace theory since it involves only copying without replacement. This conceptual advantage, however, is probably only apparent since a theory of the interpretation of structures like (1b) would probably be more complicated than for (1a). Stan-dard assumptions about interpretation, at least, don’t predict the right mean-ing when applied to (1b). For this reason, Chomsky and Fox propose what I’ll call the copy+modify-theory illustrated in (1c). This proposes that copying is followed by a trace modification operation that replaces the determiner of the moved DP with something else. I assume that this is an indexed definite determiner, the interpretation of which is to be clarified below. This paper presents a direct argument for the copy+modify structure (1c). I claim that, in certain cases of sentences containing two occurrences of the same quantificational DP, one occurrence can be contrasted with the trace of the other in a way predicted only by the copy+modify theory. Namely, I claim that the configuration sketched in (2) can arise. In (2), there should be a contrast between the definite determiner inserted by trace modification and the universal quantifier, and hence the second universal quantifier can be focussed. (2) [every boy]x. [thex boy]. [EVERY]F boy
|
|
URL: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.517.19
http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/TY3MTljM/wccfl01.pdf
|
|
BASE
|
|
Hide details
|
|
|
| 86 |
No ‘No’: On the Crosslinguistic Absence of a Determiner ‘No’∗
|
|
|
|
In: http://edocs.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/volltexte/2009/12806/pdf/SAUERLAND_On_the_Crosslinguistic_Absence.pdf
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 87 |
Hardts Surprising Sloppy Readings: A Flat Binding Account ∗
|
|
|
|
In: http://www.hf.uio.no/ilos/forskning/aktuelt/arrangementer/konferanser/2007/SuB12/proceedings/sauerland_523-536.pdf
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 88 |
Hardts Surprising Sloppy Readings: A Flat Binding Account ∗
|
|
|
|
In: http://edocs.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/volltexte/2009/12748/pdf/SAUERLAND_Hardts_Surprising_Sloppy_Readings.pdf
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 89 |
Focus and the Semantic Typology of Reciprocals
|
|
|
|
In: http://languagelink.let.uu.nl/burs/RCL07/pages/handouts/sauerland.pdf
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
|
|
