FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2890135073> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2890135073 abstract "Author(s): Werthen, Lydia | Advisor(s): McCloskey, James | Abstract: This paper centers on a phenomenon known as interrogative continuation, which encompasses a class of fragment questions that depend on a linguistic antecedent and contain at least one apparently unraised interrogative element, as illustrated by theexample in (1).(1) A: John bought a picture.B: A picture of whom? [Bechhoffer 1976:45]First appearing in the literature via Ross’s (1969) discussion on sluicing, the construction in (1) has received little attention to date and all investigations thus far have been largely inconclusive, inconsistent, and independent of one another. The goal of the current investigation is therefore to provide the most detailed account of interrogative continuation by building upon previous works about the phenomenon and drawing on aspects from all major subfields of linguistics. The widespread usage of this construction both within and across languages and the fact that it has been so understudied make this an all the more worthwhile endeavor.In this paper, I survey a wide range of naturally-occurring data and lay out the core principles of interrogative continuations, which include their commonly sub-sentential fragment structure, discourse dependence, unembeddability, and apparent lack of whmovement. Using two acceptability judgment surveys, I resolve one major disagreement in the limited existing literature pertaining to the constructions’ dependence on preceding discourse material. I also discuss the distinction between interrogative continuations and echo questions, which I attribute primarily to the presence of a [Q]-related [F] feature that is inherent to genuinely interrogative elements but absent in echo questions (following Truckenbrodt (2012)). This featural difference in the syntax contributes to both prosodic and semantic differences between echo questions and continuations, where interrogative continuations follow an intonational pattern similar to that of regular constituent questions and function as genuine information-seeking questions. To account for these facts in the syntax, I propose a fragment-based analysis which builds on an account proposed by Weir (2017) and makes use of a new copying mechanism called Reuse-XP. I posit that this mechanism copies syntactic material from a linguistic antecedent into the continuation site, wherein an interrogative element is adjoined or realized as an overt complement to a copied predicate. Although many puzzles remain, this paper should serve as a starting point for future investigations into the nature of fragment questions." @default.
• W2890135073 created "2018-09-27" @default.
• W2890135073 creator A5013887864 @default.
• W2890135073 date "2018-01-01" @default.
• W2890135073 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W2890135073 title "Interrogative Continuation: A Neglected Puzzle" @default.
• W2890135073 hasPublicationYear "2018" @default.
• W2890135073 type Work @default.
• W2890135073 sameAs 2890135073 @default.
• W2890135073 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2890135073 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2890135073 hasAuthorship W2890135073A5013887864 @default.
• W2890135073 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W2890135073 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2890135073 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2890135073 hasConcept C199360897 @default.
• W2890135073 hasConcept C2777212361 @default.
• W2890135073 hasConcept C2781256819 @default.
• W2890135073 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2890135073 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W2890135073 hasConcept C50335755 @default.
• W2890135073 hasConcept C57098296 @default.
• W2890135073 hasConcept C59650362 @default.
• W2890135073 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W2890135073 hasConcept C88626702 @default.
• W2890135073 hasConceptScore W2890135073C111472728 @default.
• W2890135073 hasConceptScore W2890135073C138885662 @default.
• W2890135073 hasConceptScore W2890135073C15744967 @default.
• W2890135073 hasConceptScore W2890135073C199360897 @default.
• W2890135073 hasConceptScore W2890135073C2777212361 @default.
• W2890135073 hasConceptScore W2890135073C2781256819 @default.
• W2890135073 hasConceptScore W2890135073C41008148 @default.
• W2890135073 hasConceptScore W2890135073C41895202 @default.
• W2890135073 hasConceptScore W2890135073C50335755 @default.
• W2890135073 hasConceptScore W2890135073C57098296 @default.
• W2890135073 hasConceptScore W2890135073C59650362 @default.
• W2890135073 hasConceptScore W2890135073C77805123 @default.
• W2890135073 hasConceptScore W2890135073C88626702 @default.
• W2890135073 hasLocation W28901350731 @default.
• W2890135073 hasOpenAccess W2890135073 @default.
• W2890135073 hasPrimaryLocation W28901350731 @default.
• W2890135073 hasRelatedWork W114838382 @default.
• W2890135073 hasRelatedWork W1625129959 @default.
• W2890135073 hasRelatedWork W1932597422 @default.
• W2890135073 hasRelatedWork W1997692468 @default.
• W2890135073 hasRelatedWork W2007932328 @default.
• W2890135073 hasRelatedWork W2046100839 @default.
• W2890135073 hasRelatedWork W2164410942 @default.
• W2890135073 hasRelatedWork W2182621772 @default.
• W2890135073 hasRelatedWork W2252114066 @default.
• W2890135073 hasRelatedWork W2289558703 @default.
• W2890135073 hasRelatedWork W2303670071 @default.
• W2890135073 hasRelatedWork W2320717366 @default.
• W2890135073 hasRelatedWork W2489359269 @default.
• W2890135073 hasRelatedWork W2496421274 @default.
• W2890135073 hasRelatedWork W2501972551 @default.
• W2890135073 hasRelatedWork W2756069999 @default.
• W2890135073 hasRelatedWork W2898121678 @default.
• W2890135073 hasRelatedWork W437996618 @default.
• W2890135073 hasRelatedWork W821671494 @default.
• W2890135073 hasRelatedWork W996476276 @default.
• W2890135073 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2890135073 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2890135073 magId "2890135073" @default.
• W2890135073 workType "article" @default.