Should I stay or should I go? Optional focus movement in Italian-猫眼课题宝

我应该走还是留？

DOI：

发表时间：

2012

期刊：

影响因子：

通讯作者：

中科院分区：

文献类型：

作者：

V. Bianchi;Giuliano Bocci

可选择的移动在两个方面存在问题。首先，最近的句法分析假设，位移的一个组成部分是触发的需要，以满足形式上的要求，这是实现方面的功能。根据这一观点，在（1B′）中，直接宾语带有一个[焦点]特征，这个特征必须被许可在小句左边缘的一个适当的范围位置（Rizzi，1997）。但是，这种特征要求被假定为强制性的，因此，在（1B）/（1B′）中观察到的选择性是出乎意料的。关于焦点的解释也出现了类似的问题。在替代语义学方法（Rooth，1992）中，焦点成分被就地解释，而在结构化意义方法（Krifka，2006）的一个版本中，焦点成分必须被移位，以创建一个可以透明地映射到结构化意义的分割结构（§3.3）：从任何一个角度来看，可选移动都是意想不到的。结构（1B）和（1B′）通常被认为在它们的解释性质方面是完全等价的;在本文中，我们认为它们不是。在§2中，我们表明可以区分（至少）两种类型的解释，它们在不同的情况下是恰当的

Optional movement is problematic in two respects. First, recent syntactic analyses assume that the displacement of a constituent is triggered by the need to satisfy a formal requirement, which is implemented in terms of features. According to this view, in (1B′) the direct object bears a [focus] feature, which must be licensed in an appropriate scopal position in the left periphery of the clause (Rizzi 1997). But such featural requirements are assumed to be mandatory, and therefore, the optionality observed in (1B)/(1B′) is unexpected. A similar problem emerges with respect to the interpretation of focus. In the Alternative Semantics approach (Rooth 1992), the focus constituent is interpreted in situ, whereas in one version of the Structured Meaning approach (Krifka 2006), the focus constituent must be displaced in order to create a partitioned structure that can be transparently mapped into a structured meaning (§3.3): from either perspective, optional movement is once again unexpected. The structures (1B) and (1B′) are commonly taken to be fully equivalent with respect to their interpretive properties; in this paper we argue that they are not. In §2 we show that it is possible to distinguish (at least) two types of interpretation, which are felicitous in different

Should I stay or should I go? Optional focus movement in Italian

我应该走还是留？

文献摘要

被引文献

相似文献