<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Schlenker on Indefinites and Disjunctions</title>
	<atom:link href="http://semantics-online.org/2004/05/schlenker-on-indefinites-and-disjunctions/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://semantics-online.org/2004/05/schlenker-on-indefinites-and-disjunctions</link>
	<description>A weblog on semantics, pragmatics, philosophy of language, and intersections thereof</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 13 Oct 2008 13:15:46 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Tony Marmo</title>
		<link>http://semantics-online.org/2004/05/schlenker-on-indefinites-and-disjunctions#comment-115</link>
		<dc:creator>Tony Marmo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jun 2004 11:07:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.semantics-online.org/wp/uncategorized/2004/05/schlenker-on-indefinites-and-disjunctions#comment-115</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;I have not looked into the paper yet, but, if Schlenker could reply to this post, I would like to know what Schlenker thinks of Han &#38; Romero's paper, &lt;a href="http://mitpress.mit.edu/journals/pdf/ling_35_2_179_0.pdf" rel="nofollow"&gt;'Disjunction, Focus, and Scope'&lt;/a&gt;(*) and of Hamblin approaches, like Kratzer [&lt;a href="http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/mE3ZjAzM/From%20Japanese%20to%20Salish.pdf" rel="nofollow"&gt;1&lt;/a&gt;,&lt;a href="http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/WEwNjc4Z/Indeterminate%20Pronouns.pdf" rel="nofollow"&gt;2&lt;/a&gt;,&lt;a href="http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/DFjNjM5M/Scope.or.Pseudoscope.pdf" rel="nofollow"&gt;3&lt;/a&gt;&#38;&lt;a href="http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/zIyNTMxZ/Choice%20Functions%20in%20Context.pdf" rel="nofollow"&gt;4&lt;/a&gt;].&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;*'This article presents the observation that disjunction cannot take wide scope in negative non-wh-questions and declaratives with a preposed negative element. This rules out the alternative question reading for non-wh-questions with preposed negation and the wide scope or reading for neg-inverted declaratives. We show that effects parallel to the ones associated with preposed negation can be reproduced in affirmative non-wh-questions and declaratives when focus is involved. We propose that preposed negation in non-wh-questions and preposed negative adverbials in declaratives necessarilycontribute focus marking (in particular, verum focus) and argue that the lack of wide scope disjunction reading in both declaratives and non-wh-questions results as a by-product of the interaction between focus and the LF syntax of disjunctive structures, which we argue involves ellipsis.'&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have not looked into the paper yet, but, if Schlenker could reply to this post, I would like to know what Schlenker thinks of Han &amp; Romero&#8217;s paper, <a href="http://mitpress.mit.edu/journals/pdf/ling_35_2_179_0.pdf" rel="nofollow">&#8216;Disjunction, Focus, and Scope&#8217;</a>(*) and of Hamblin approaches, like Kratzer [<a href="http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/mE3ZjAzM/From%20Japanese%20to%20Salish.pdf" rel="nofollow">1</a>,<a href="http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/WEwNjc4Z/Indeterminate%20Pronouns.pdf" rel="nofollow">2</a>,<a href="http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/DFjNjM5M/Scope.or.Pseudoscope.pdf" rel="nofollow">3</a>&amp;<a href="http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/zIyNTMxZ/Choice%20Functions%20in%20Context.pdf" rel="nofollow">4</a>].</p>
<p>*&#8217;This article presents the observation that disjunction cannot take wide scope in negative non-wh-questions and declaratives with a preposed negative element. This rules out the alternative question reading for non-wh-questions with preposed negation and the wide scope or reading for neg-inverted declaratives. We show that effects parallel to the ones associated with preposed negation can be reproduced in affirmative non-wh-questions and declaratives when focus is involved. We propose that preposed negation in non-wh-questions and preposed negative adverbials in declaratives necessarilycontribute focus marking (in particular, verum focus) and argue that the lack of wide scope disjunction reading in both declaratives and non-wh-questions results as a by-product of the interaction between focus and the LF syntax of disjunctive structures, which we argue involves ellipsis.&#8217;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
