Article published In: Linguistics in the Netherlands 2022
Edited by Jorrig Vogels and Sterre Leufkens
[Linguistics in the Netherlands 39] 2022
► pp. 209–224
Toward a supralexical analysis of the repetitive/restitutive ambiguity
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.
For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.
Open Access publication of this article was funded through a Transformative Agreement with University of Groningen.
Published online: 4 November 2022
https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00070.tal
https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00070.tal
Abstract
Syntactic decomposition theories of argument structure take predicates to be syntactically complex, consisting of
a root and one or more functional heads. Traditionally, these functional heads have been used as potential attachment sites for
adverbs, such as the repetitive adverb again, giving rise to the repetitive/restitutive ambiguity. In this paper,
I question the assumption that these functional heads provide sublexical attachment sites based on theoretical and empirical
objections. Taking both the scope of the adverb and effects of focus into account, I present a supralexical approach to the
ambiguity. Discussing novel data of two Dutch repetitive adverbs as well as a repetitive verbal prefix, I argue that
again has a default restitutive reading that becomes repetitive if the adverb scopes over the object or if
focus is placed on the adverb. This research has implications for syntactic decomposition approaches to argument structure.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.The repetitive/restitutive ambiguity of again
- 2.1The effect of scope
- 2.2The effect of focus
- 3.Syntactic decomposition
- 4.Structure in the Minimalist Program
- 5.Toward a supralexical analysis of the repetitive/restitutive ambiguity
- 5.1The meaning of the adverb
- 5.2The effect of scope
- 5.3The effect of focus
- 6.Conclusion
- Notes
References
References (17)
Borer, Hagit. 2005. Structuring sense: The normal course of events. Vol. 21. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Harley, Heidi & Rolf Noyer. 2000. “Formal versus encyclopedic properties of vocabulary: Evidence from nominalizations.” In Bert Peeters. (ed.), The lexicon-encyclopedia interface, 349–374. Leiden: Brill.
Jäger, Gerhard & Reinhard Blutner. 2000. “Against lexical decomposition in syntax.” In Proceedings of LATL, vol. 151, 113–137.
Koster, Jan. 2000. “Pied piping and the word orders of English and Dutch.” In North east linguistics society, vol. 301, 415–426.
Neeleman, Ad & Hans van de Koot. 2019. “The non-existence of sub-lexical scope. In Lu-dovico Franco & Paolo Lorusso.” (eds.), Linguistic variation: Structure and interpretation, 501–530. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Ramchand, Gillian. 2008. Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first-phase syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Uriagereka, Juan. 1997. “Multiple spell-out.” GAGL: Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik (40). 109–135.
Vanden Wyngaerd, Guido. 1989. “Object shift as an a-movement rule.” MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 111. 256–271.
