W. Labov's & T. Labov's findings concerning their child grammar acquisition ("Learning the Syntax of Questions" in Recent Advances in the Psychology of Language, Campbell, R. & Smith, P. Eds, New York: Plenum Press, 1978) are interpreted in terms of different semantics of why & other wh-questions. Z. Dubiel.

According to the alternative semantics for focus, the semantic reflec of intonational focus is a second semantic value, which in the case of a sentence is a set of propositions. We examine a range of semantic and pragmatic applications of the theory, and extract a unitary principle specifying how the focus semantic value interacts with semantic and pragmatic processes. A strong version of the theory has the effect of making lexical or construction-specific stipulation of a focus-related effect in association-with-focus constructions (...) impossible. Furthermore, while focus has a uniform import, the sources of meaning differences in association with focus are various. (shrink)

Keenan (1987) observed that trivial determiners built from basic existential determiners (e.g.,either zero or else more than zero) are allowed inthere-insertion contexts, and that trivial determiners built from basic non-existential determiners (e.g.,either all or else not all) are not. This result is unexpected under the analyses ofthere-sentences proposed in Barwise and Cooper (1981), Higginbotham (1987), and Keenan (1987). I argue that the class of NPs barred from the postverbal position ofthere-sentences (strong NPs) is correctly characterized in presuppositional terms, as suggested (...) in de Jong and Verkuyl (1985) and Lumsden (1988). According to this characterization, strong NPs share one of the defining components of definiteness proposed in Heim (1982), namely the Descriptive Content Condition (DCC). How to derive the prohibition against strong NPs inthere-insertion contexts (definiteness effect) from the fact that strong NPs meet the DCC is not obvious, however. I argue that accounting for this prohibition involves regarding the XP-coda in [there be NP XP] as providing the contextual domain for the interpretation of the postverbal NP. (shrink)

This paper grew out of a reaction to Elisabeth Selkirk's contribution to the Handbook of Phonology (Goldsmith 1996). Section 1.2 of that article is concerned with syntactic and semantic aspects of the placement of pitch accents in English. As will be seen in the data to be presented below, the constellation of pitch accents in an utterance is determined in part by properties of the preceding discourse, including the distinction between new and old information. This means for example, that a (...) phrase containing accent is appropriate in a different set of contexts than that same phrase unaccented. Since accents are assigned within words but the pragmatics can make reference to phrases, the following question arises. Given a word that is accented, which phrases count as containing accent as far as the pragmatics is concerned and which not? This question is known as the projection problem, though I have characterized it in slightly different terms than is normally done, for reasons to be made clear below. As Selkirk shows, projection is sensitive to argument structure and other syntactic notions (see Gussenhoven(1984), Rochement(1986), Schmerling(1976) and Selkirk 1984)). In Selkirk's system, a sentence can have one or more foci and these foci are marked with an F in the syntactic tree. Focussing a phrase leads to a certain kind of.. (shrink)