Investigating syntactic and semantic variation in exceptive-additive constructions from a crosslinguistic perspective

这个项目从跨语言的角度探讨了例外加法结构的句法和语义。(1)除了Joe以外的每个男孩都有。EA结构分为三类：(I)明确的例外，(Ii)明确的例外-可加的，(Iii)明确的可加的。关于(I)存在大量的文学作品。(1)与“但是”和“除”在一起的变体都是例子，显示了“男孩乔没有来，其他男孩都来了”的特殊意思。(Ii)和(Iii)尽管(Ii)在跨语言方面比(I)(和(Iii))更普遍，但到目前为止还没有得到多少关注。对于(Ii)，(1)加上“此外”是一个再次获得例外意义的例子。最重要的是，(2)中的“除此之外”有加法的意思，意思是‘男孩乔来了，还有其他男孩来了’，而“但是”和“除了”是不能接受的。(2)除了乔之外，还有一些男孩*但是/除了/*。它是“但是”和“例外”的反义词，因为它与“每个”不兼容，但与“一些”没有什么不同，因为它获得了附加的意义。WP1处理在EA结构的(Iv)语法和(V)语义中发现的相当大的变化。这种变异还没有被系统地研究过，因此人们对它的理解很差。WP1是由理论考虑驱动的大规模数据收集。它既研究跨语言变异，也研究语言内的此类变异。由于WP1调查的是未被研究的语言，它将揭示变化的真正广度。关于第(4)款，工作组询问哪些EA可以放在从句材料之前，哪些不能。例如，在第(1)款中，EA中跟在“除了”和“例外”后面的材料可以是从句，但与“但是”不是这样的。关于(V)，WP1询问在一种语言中有哪些确切的EA含义以及它们依赖于什么。例如，在(1)和(2)中，例外的读数与“每个”一致，而加法的读数与“一些”一致。但在Tundra Nenets中，这两种语境都只允许异常阅读。WP2建立在WP1中收集的数据基础上，以开发不同句法大小的EA结构的统一正式语义描述。由于大多数现有的EA构式理论都建立在关于“但是”的观察之上，而“但是”不能放在完整的从句之前，所以他们对许多数据做出了错误的预测。因此，在WP1结果的基础上建立的账户将在描述上更加充分。它将尽可能多地捕捉语言和模型之间的相似之处和语义差异。WP2背后的两个关键思想是：EA的某种读数的可用性取决于它自己的逻辑属性和句子中其他功能成分的逻辑属性；异常相加的歧义是结构性的，即歧义的EA表达式分解成两个具有可变作用域的运算符，而明确的EA表达式不这样做。

This project explores the syntax and semantics of exceptive-additive (EA) constructions crosslinguistically. The variants of (1) are instances of such constructions.(1) Every boy but / besides / except Joe came.EA constructions fall into three categories: (i) unambiguously exceptive, (ii) ambiguously exceptive-additive, and (iii) unambiguously additive. On (i) a substantive amount of literature exists. The variants of (1) with “but” and “except” are examples, showing the exceptive meaning ‘Boy Joe did not come and every other boy came’. (ii) and (iii) have received little attention so far despite (ii) being more common crosslinguistically than (i) (and (iii)). For (ii), (1) with “besides” is an example receiving again the exceptive meaning. Crucially, “besides” in (2) yields the additive meaning ‘Boy Joe came and some other boy came’, whereas “but” and “except” are unacceptable.(2) Some boy *but / besides / *except Joe came.For (iii) Spanish “además de” is an example. It is the reverse of “but” and “except” in that it is incompatible with “every” but fine with “some”, where it gets the additive meaning.The project consists of two work packages (WPs) with the following goals. WP1 deals with the considerable variation found both in the (iv) syntax and (v) semantics of EA constructions. This variation has not been systematically studied and is therefore ill understood. WP1 is a large-scale data collection driven by theoretical considerations. It studies both crosslinguistic variation and such within languages. Since WP1 investigates understudied languages it will reveal the true breadth of variation. Regarding (iv), WP1 asks which EAs can precede clausal material and which cannot. E.g., the material in the EA following “besides” and “except” in (1) can be clausal, but not so with “but”. Regarding (v), WP1 asks which exact EA meanings are available in a language and what they depend on. E.g. in (1) and (2) the exceptive reading aligns with “every”, and the additive one with “some”. But in Tundra Nenets both contexts only allow for the exceptive reading.WP2 builds on the data gathered in WP1 to develop a unified formal semantic account of EA constructions of varying syntactic sizes. Since most existing theories of EA constructions build on observations about ”but”, which cannot precede full clauses, they make the wrong predictions for many data. The account built on the basis of the results from WP1 will therefore be descriptively more adequate. It will both capture similarities between languages and model as much of the semantic variation found as possible. The two key ideas underlying WP2 are: the availability of a certain reading of an EA depends on its own logical properties and those of the other functional elements in the sentence; the exceptive-additive ambiguity is structural, i.e., ambiguous EA expressions decompose into two operators with variable scopes, whereas unambiguous EA expressions do not do so.