cannot be a discourse marker. About apt and inapt ...

‘Wenn/If’ cannot be a discourse marker. About apt and inapt arguments on the topic ‘insubordinate subordination’. Werner Abraham

1. What might tempt one to analyze wenn/if as a discourse marker The goal of the present discussion is the clarification of the status of sentences with the looks of subordination, but which nevertheless appear autonomously like (1)-(4) below.1 The recent debate on this phenomenon has been traced back to Evans (2007), but it has, in fact, a far longer. tradition, in particular in the literature on German data. The gist of the ensuing discussion is as follows: 1. The subordinate wenn/ if (and its equivalents in other languages, notably German), as an ‘insubordinate subordinator’/IS, may neither be a true subordinator in a number of cases, nor can it be a discourse marker for various reasons, among which that wenn/if retains its original conditional meaning and that other subjunctions fail to undergo the same grammaticalizing result. The latter issue fails to substantiate with generalizing force the classification of wenn/if as a discourse marker. 2. Once wenn/if is taken to be possible and meaningful also in what is an embedded form (which, counter to English, is beyond doubt in German), we shall add it to the list of matrix clauses marking special speech acts counteracting, undoubtedly, all syntactic canons. 3. Since, furthermore, the phenomena under discussion show also prosodic treats of autonomous declaratives, we conclude that the pf-module hosting the prosodic rules overwrite syntactic and semantic-truth logical rules with the effect to autonomize phenomena of insubordinate subordination. Such steps, however, do not invalidate the canonic syntactic and semantic rules (such as word order, MP-insertability, subjunctor cliticization, etc.). The problem to be solved in the present discussion is briefly this: In the pertinent literature we find solutions to the extent that such original subordinators as if are reclassified as discourse operators licensing sentences in their own matrixlike right. This position is here refuted. The phenomenon, more generally, is this. There appear to be exclamative sentences introduced by subjunctors, which nevertheless stand by themselves yielding the speech act effect of independent clauses. See the following illustration (1)-(4), where the respective subjunction words appear underlined. [Italics for valid English sentences, glosses of the German sentences in flat Roman. ‘Syntactic form’ refers to ‘embedded’ vs. ‘non-embedded’; parentheses signal elided protasis or apodosis.]

(1) Wenn er heute nur hier wäre! if he only were here today! (2) Was DAS nun wieder ist! what that again might be! (3) Ob das heute wohl noch geht? if that today still works (4) Dass DAS denn noch geht heute!? 1

Syntactic form C(?)

speech act autonomy autonomous

(CP)CP

autonomous

(CP)C

autonomous

C(CP)

autonomous

Autonomy is more than Root. Dependent clauses such as logical ones (as opposed to temporal and local ones) have root quality in that they project independent illocutive force, which enables them to select modal particles in their own right. Temporal-local dependents do not. Sentence autonomy goes further in that they add utterance independence. In other words, they select illocutive force AND can be uttered without matrix support.

that this still works today Notice that (1), due to the insertion of the modal particle nur ‘only’, cannot be thought of as a conditional subordinate. There is no protasis or apodosis imaginable. (2) is possible as an apodosis sentence to a performance verb question (Er fragte sich ,.. ‘he asked himself …’). The same holds for a performance predicate protasis for (3) and, as an apodosis, for (4). However, any superordinate clause other than by the form of a performance predicate (say, believe, ask) appears impossible. Again, the insertions of the modal particles/MPs wohl ‘well’ and denn (‘then’) render (3) and (4) as insubordinable to any matrix clause. Given that wenn-dass/if-that (henceforth IS) count as subjunctions subordinating complement sentences as well as the fact that such sentences fully comply with our communicative understanding as emotive utterances with wishful import may lead to the conclusion that all there remains to classify if in an autonomous utterance is a discourse marker. All of this lets us conclude that the autonomy of sentences as speech acts in their own right cannot be made contingent alone on the presence of an embedding matrix clause. (1)-(4) are not embeddable while doubtlessly autonomous. We emphasize that one of the factors for clause typing is the insertion of MPs – grammatical (not lexical!) adverbials affecting the speech act quality in C(omp) (Abraham 2013, 2014; Struckmeier 2014). We will return to this type determinant. Our refutation of the claim that if, what (and more in German) are autonomous discourse operators will be based on the following empirical problems: o All ‘insubordinate subordinations’ have the looks of subordinated sentences (V-final in German and Dutch). o Subordinated sentences generally disallow the insertion of modal particles for reasons of their presuppositional (rather than assertive) status. o The clash between categorial status of the pertinent subjunctors and sentential autonomy is to be solved along two different lines: o Either the lexical subjunctor is recategorized with a fundamentally different licensing force (as indicated in the literature referred to in the incipient paragraph) – this position will have to say what is behind the syntactic and semantic-pragmatic properties reserved to subordination. o Or the list of autonomous sentences is extended equally fundamentally. This step requires that the criteria for motivating sentence types/STs are extended such that not only the new STs, but also the old ones are covered under one common denominator. This line of argumentation need not change the syntactic-semantic status of subordinators. They remain subordinators both semantically and syntactically. We will pursue the line of argumentation using MPs as diagnostics for sentential autonomy (second in the list above). Notice that much depends of the categories and sentential characteristics of subordinated sentences. The fact that subordination is clearly signaled by word order and MP insertion in German (and Dutch), but not in English and French2 (since there are no such differences in the first place) indicates very strongly that our solution may not be valid cross-linguistically. The ensuing discussion follows basic insights on the distinction of declarative meaning and ‚locution‘

2

Proclisis characteristic of matrix clauses is replicated in embeddings: Moi je crois que … – Il a dit que moi je crois … . Proclisis is retained. French subordination is motivated semantically, not syntactically as in German. The same holds for English.

meaning in regard tot he assumption in update semantics that the meaning of a sentence is its context change potential/CCP (cf. Gunlogson (2001: 50-51) before the background prepared by Heim 1982 and others). The modification made here is that the CCP of a sentence is defined in terms of an update to a substructure of the context, i.e. the commitment set (cs) of an individual participant. Consistent with the ,accompanying working hypotheses tob e unfolded, intonational rise and fall will serve to identify the individual cs to be updated, given an utterance context, i.e., a context in which individual participants can be identified in the roles of Speaker/Sp and Addressee/Addr. 2. Why wenn/if can never be a discourse marker: the necessary requirement. It may seem difficult to tell whether English if still has the status of a subjunction in sentences like (1). After all, (1) has a fully saturated communicative meaning even as long as devoid of an appropriate matrix clause. Furthermore, it appears tough, or maybe even impossible, to find a corresponding matrix clause that, even if elided elliptically, may posit the kind of dependency required for (1). It is argued here that any subjunction requiring finite V to stay in clause-last position in German is at the bottom of the explanation why if-clauses may receive independent status as an exclamative speech act. This is a necessary, a sine qua non condition on this phenomenon. However, as is obvious from comparing if-independents with imperatives and yes-no questions independents, an extra condition must be added to come to terms with the difference between independent if and equally independent, but V-to-C motivated imperatives and sentence questions. Let us first develop the first step in our line of argumentation as illustrated in Fig.1. Notice that we assume the illocutive force of the exclamative to derive from FIN (‘C(omp)’ in syntactic terminology). In other words, V-final-move to-C is the necessary, albeit insufficient requirement for IS. The main body of our illustrations comes from German, which has an extended literature on sentence types (Altmann 1988, Altmann/Batliner/ Oppenrieder 1989, Maienborn/Steinbach/Altmann 2013) and has variously addressed the problem of sentence type interpretation (cf. Kaiser/ Struckmeier 2015). Notice that all cases of IS show an empty prefield indicative of a strong intervention effect (of feature alignment) between C(omp/FIN), the left predicate bracket, and the prefield/ SpecCP. See Fig.1. [The clausal representation in terms of the five sentence fields in Fig.1 simplify structural bracketing or a corresponding tree representation. IS abbreviates the classification as ‘insubordinate subordination’. German is a strict OV language due to its principled left directed valence force as in MutterDAT ein GeschenkACC bringen ‘bring mother a present.]

Prefield Er he Es wäreschön It would be nice  Er fragt sich he wonders

FIN/C(omp) wäre would wenn if

L eft MF

Lexical V hier here hier wäre here were

IS -

er he

Right MF heute gerne today bloß heute only today

Wenn if was what

er *(bloß) he only das nun this now

heute today wieder again

hier wäre! here were Ist is

+

-

-

Was das nun wieder Ist!? +  Das geht heute noch  This goes today still Dass das heute noch geht!? +  Es ist völlig Ob das heute noch geht? undeutlich if this today still goes it is not evident Ob das heute noch geht? +  Er weiß dass das heute noch geht nicht that this today still goes he knows not Das Ist nun etwas zu viel  This is now a little too much Das *ist/IST nun wieder etwas! +  Wer ist das *nur?  Who is that only Wer *ist/IST das nur! + Fig.1: German sentence structure based on clause type, speech act, and subordination (caps for (contrastive) stress). English syntax will typically provide the following structures for the three (four including negation) different sentences as in Fig.2. SpecCP FIN-AUX VP Postfield IS He would rather be here today It would be nice if he were here today He can-not be here today If *(only) he would be here today! + Fig.2: English sentence structure with respect to clause type, speech act, and subordination Quite generally, discourse markers appear outside of CP in English (for example as interjections or theticals). Given such status for If in Fig.2, however, it would have to be the combination if only since if by itself would not be grammatical. The latter fact yields even more pressure to the semantic result: Both if and only contribute substantively to the entire meaning of the clause with if retaining its conditional force and only adding some of the notion as a temporal adverb. Discourse markers have as their typical meaning something that is very independent of the semantics and syntax of the CP it refers to (either left dislocated or parenthetically linearized). We conclude that if in Fig.2 cannot be a discourse marker. The comparison with Fig.1 on German makes this conclusion irrevocable. Independent and dependent clauses are structurally and linearly different. wenn ‘if’ appears in Comp thereby forcing the finite predicate to get stuck in the V-final position. Thus, it cannot be assigned independent status by syntactic criteria. 3. Why wenn/if can never be a discourse marker: the prosodic disentangler as a sufficient criterion.

While each of the embedded sentences in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 has rising prosody due to its question speech act or falling prosody given its declarative status, the exclamations in question have the opposite tone development, namely high. Phonetic studies have proposed high boundary tones as an intonational cue for “non-final” clauses in a wide range of languages (Chen, 2007; Gussenhoven & Chen, 2000, Beckman, Díaz Campos/McGory/Morgan, 2002). Following this finding, it is argued here that, while elliptical constructions have rising intonation patterns, syntactic independent clauses show falling patterns. Therefore, we propose prosody as an acoustic cue for the level of the syntactic (in)dependency of the construction in question (cf. Elvira-García 2015). This may appear to be the end of the story. Sentences, then, simply will have to be listed under two main parameters: linear form and speech act as necessary conditions and, possibly, intonation and corrective focus/CF as sufficient ones. We shall opt for exactly this confluence of licensing factors. Notice that it is not made clear at what stage of the derivation sentence prosodic tone comes in and whether it is of any sentence type determining effect. See Fig.3 for the additional tone and focus characterization. English syntax will typically provide the following sentence structures for the three different sentences together with the tone assignments. See Fig,4. SpecCP FIN-AUX VP Postfield Tone He would rather be here today L- It would be nice If he were here today L- If *(only) he would be here today! L- Fig.4: English sentence structure based on clause type and speech act (no special form of subordination)

Prefield

FIN

Left MF

Right MF

Lexical V

Tone

S-type

Er He Es wäreschön It would be nice

er he er *(bloß) he only DAS nun

heute gerne today bloß heute just today heute today wieder

hier here hier wäre here were hier wäre! here were Ist

high-low 

Er fragt sich

Wäre Were wenn if Wenn If was



Was

DAS nun

wieder

ist!?

CF-low

Declarative independent Conditional dependent ‘Conditional’ independent Indirect Q dependent Indirect Q independent

Das

geht Dass ob



das das

heute noch heute noch heute noch

high-low  low-high high-low 



 Es ist völlig undeutlich

geht!? geht.

high-low  high-low  CF-low 

Indirect Q dependent Ob das heute noch geht? low-high Indirect Q  independent Er weiß nicht dass das noch heute geht S-complemt high-low  dependent Das geht heute noch Declarative high-low  independent Dass das heute noch geht!! S-complemt  low-high  independent Das ist nun etwas zu viel Declarative  high-low  independent Das *ist/IST nun wieder etwas! Declarative  VF-low  Verum focus Wer ist das (*nur)? low-high w-interrogat. Wer *ist/IST das (nur)! W-INTERROGAT high-low  VERUM FOCUS Fig.3: German sentence structure wrt. clause type, speech act, and subordination [VF=verum focus, CF=corrective focus]

4. Clause types and alleged insubordination In the recent past, there has been a renewed interest in sentence types/ STs in German. ST classifications are based on sentence type criteria, such as word order, predicate bracket in German including V-final in subordinate sentences, the discourse based distribution of clause parts inside the predicate bracket, the choice of material in the prefield/SpecCP, the insertion of modal particles in the middle field, etc.. See 4.1. below for an intensional definition of STs by Lohnstein (2000, 2007, based on Groenendijk & Stockhoff 1982, 1984, and Higginbotham 1996, Meibauer/ Steinbach/Altmann 2013, Thurmair 2013) relating the interaction between syntactic form and ST. We will first recapitulate Lohnstein’s definitions and then apply them to the type of sentences that are autonomous, but nevertheless are dependents in German (as V-final sentences and headed by subjunctors). 4.1. Classic and non-Classic Sentence Types According to Lohnstein (2000, 2007; Abraham 2014, Struckmeier 2014), the following definitions interrelate syntactic form and ST. Evaluation under some world of discussion means that the clause is independent (matrix) and that a truth value can be assigned. No such evaluation yields a dependent sentence. Further structural prerequisite: Any verb occupying the left bracket/Comp has to be finite. If, and only if, a verb or its the auxiliary part occupies the left bracket/Comp does a sentence have illocutionary force (a specific speech act type) on its own. Sentences are semantically objects assigned to sets of worlds or an individual world. Let us see which semantic types of world assignable objects we can distinguish. 4.2. Types of semantic objects A CLAUSE DEPENDENCY – TYPICAL V-FINAL: If both the lexical and the auxiliary (haben, sein, werden; modal verbs) part of the predicative verb, either finite or non-finite, remains in the right bracket (in ‘V-final’), the proposition denoted by the sentence will not be evaluated against a world under discussion. Such a clause is not asserted and does not carry illocutive force in its own right, but it does that only in the context of a matrix clause (taking over the illocutive force of the matrix clause). The clause under discussion is thus presupposed and does not carry illocutive force in its own right. Dependent upon the type of matrix predicate (factive vs. non-factive), such dependent clauses do not allow the insertion of MPs (ja, denn, eben), since such illocution establishing grammatical material is nonsensical in presuppositions. If embedded under non-factive predicates (say, believe, think) and allowing bridge constructions, MP insertion is possible since there is no status of dependency in the first place. In canonic terminology: SUBORDINATE CLAUSE (PRESUPPOSED). B CLAUSE INDEPENDENCY – TYPICAL V2: If, and only if, the finite part of the predicate (either as an auxiliary, modal verb, copula or lexical verb) occupies the left bracket (Comp/Co) and the prefield/SpecCP is not filled with a question word (what, who(m), where, when etc.) does a sentence have illocutionary force on its own and is assertive. The proposition denoted by the sentence will be evaluated against a world under discussion (common plus subjective grounds). In canonic terminology: MAIN or MATRIX CLAUSE (ASSERTION). C WORD INTERROGATIVE CLAUSE – V2: If a [+wh] phrase (who(m), where, when, what) occupies the prefield and the finite (part of the) predicate stays in the right bracket (V-final), the derived semantic object consists of the partition of all possible worlds into a set of sets. In canonic terminology: WORD INTERROGATIVE/W-QUESTION CLAUSE.

D YES-NO INTERROGATIVE CLAUSE – V1: The sentence begins with the finite predicate (auxiliary or lexical) and leaves the prefield unoccupied. Thus, it fills the left clause bracket, Comp. Placing the predicate (verb) in the left bracket/Comp and leaving the prefield empty entails a semantic object that conforms to a bipartition of possible worlds. The meaning of such a clause is undecided between two sets of worlds: one where the denoted proposition is true and another one where the denoted proposition is false. In canonic terminology: INTERROGATIVE/YES-NO-QUESTION CLAUSE. E IMPERATIVE CLAUSE – V1: The predicate (verb) is placed in the left bracket/Comp and leaves the prefield unoccupied. The predicative bracket is preserved (in the case that Comp takes the finite auxiliary or modal verb), while the nonfinite part is in the right bracket/V-final. This derives a semantic object that conforms to change of the propositional to the discourse force of one individual world and only that, determined in the mind of the speaker and leaving no other choice on the side of the addressee. In canonic terminology: IMPERATIVE. F Illocutive force is a prerequisite for syntax-semantic autonomy (i.e. that a sentence can be interpreted with reference to a set of accessible worlds and thus becomes a semantic object. Among all types of syntactic subordination, non-factive complements as well as logical adverbial sentences are exceptions to the extent that they project illocutive force independent of that for the matrix clause. MPs (of the German and Dutch type) are unmistakable signals for illocutive force. To the extent that they generate illocution as well as due to the fact that they occur independently from syntactic signals of (in)dependence, they serve as classifiers of STs better than any other overt parameter. This dissociates the ST question from the traditional parameters of word order, the occurrence of subjunctions, and, last but not least, finiteness of the predicate3). G Given that verbal factivity and temporality/locality on adverbial dependent clauses play the same role in disallowing MPs (Abraham 2012, 2014) and thus waive separate illocutivity, the question arises what is the common feature of the two disperse phenomena. We will come back to that.

5. Extension of sentential autonomy There are sentences which preserve their own autonomy while being introduced by w-words and subjunctors. (1)-(4) are typical examples. Notice that they cannot be accommodated under any of the five STs in Section 4.2. To the extent that they can stand by themselves (i.e. with matrix support), they are semantic objects in their own right (with their own specific illocutive force). Yet, they preserve typical formal properties of dependent, non-autonomous sentences (left bracket/Comp occupied by a non3

Apparently, this is in line with the fact that imperative functions can go along with infinitives (Arbeiten! ‘to work’) or (erstwhile) past participles appear to match with the function of predicative attributes (Gescheit! ‘smart!’) or hearsay evidentials (schon gehört? ‘already heard of’) (cf. Evans 2007: 430) . However, the question of finiteness is only of subordinate relevance for determining ST status and so is assertivity and, as a consequence, presuppositionality. Whether this is the result of diachronic processes of elliptical reduction of syntactic matrix portions or idiomaticization appears to be irrelevant for at least two reasons: If the present position is correct, intonation and accent parameters have the force of unmistakable disambiguation (e.g. exclamative and question coded under the identical form, but singled out through different prosody markers). This, in turn, is hard to come by in ancient written documents. Given the alternative which position of this alternative outweighs the other, we give preference to what we witness on today’s phenomena. It is relevant to see what follows from this: for example, on the question whether the phenomena under discussion are a sort of backwash of the conservative view on the direction of grammaticalization.

verb) entailing lexical and grammatical V-final – briefly, following the taxonomy introduced by Evans (2007), ‘insubordinate subordinates’. However, we may distinguish two alternative approaches to this conception. See (5)-(6). (5) Either we go by the ST inventory in (A)-(E) above. In this case, the syntactic status of the complementizers wenn-ob/if, dass/that has to be revised such that they are no longer Comp fillers (left bracket), but some type of sentential operator – e.g. discourse operator thought to scope over the entire sentence and lending it its own illocutive force (possibly yielding different sorts of exclamatives with specific pragmatic imports). (6) Or we extend the ST inventory on the basis of new criteria missed so far in the classification of STs. This will yield a new list of ST definitions. Notice that, if achieved in some reasonable way, this would lead to a new standing of IS: ‘alleged subordination’ in that form (V-final for subordination, deselection of MPs, presupposition) and content, or illocutive force (selection of MPs, world assignable semantic object in its own right) would clearly be kept apart. More strongly even: Form (in German, distinction between dependent V-final and independent V2) would no longer play the major role determining ST. According to Evans, ‘insubordination’ describes a scenario where structures are used autonomously which, “on prima facie grounds, appear to be formally subordinate clauses” (Evans 2007: 367). However, as Kaiser/Struckmeier (2015) claim, the “prima facie appearance of subordination really exists only from the point of view of inadequate classification criteria used in some sentence type theories”. As Reis (2000, 2007) and Reis/Wöllstein (2010) have claimed, STs as in (7)-(9) below are outside of classifications describing German sentence types syntactically (e.g. Truckenbrodt 2006a, b) as in (A)-(E) above. The sentence initiating subjunctors do not qualify by themselves as subordinators – neither as discourse operators revised (since this would not explain why V-final occurs as a necessary and sufficient criterion for dependency and illocutive non-autonomy) nor true subordinators since they exhibit clear illocutive force in their own right. (7)-(9) have the form of subordinates, but have fully independent sentential import. Heed that criteria of accent distribution and sentential end intonation play a major role in the process of type distinction. Notice the different focus realization between (7a) and (7b) as well as the realization as a complement sentence, which reserved for (7b) due to contrastive stress. Furthermore, intonation in (7a) (cf. ) is slightly different from that in (7b) (). Stress on SPÄT ‘late’ in (7a) is corrective, while it is by default in (7b) (cf. Cinque 1993). Note also that the general rule that MPs occur in autonomous sentences, but not in nonautonomous ones (presupposition) is confirmed by (7a)(7b). Notice English examples such as (7c,d). (??, ist allgemein bekannt) is generally well-known (exclamative sentence, corrective stress) Dass er (*ja) immer zu spät kommt -  (, ist allgemein bekannt) (non autonomous subordinate, only default clause stress, no exclamative) That I should live to see such ingratitude! Evans (2015: 403f.) To think that she should be so ruthless!

(7) a Dass er (ja) immer zu SPÄT kommt(!)- that he always too late comes “Oh, that he must always come too late!” b

c d

Despite “on first sight” clues like the subordinating conjunction dass and V-final order, (7a) is not subordinated (not even under an elliptical matrix clause, if that would fit in the first place) – and neither is (8). Only autonomous versions allow for MP insertion (but not invariously; see (8)). (8) a Ob er wohl/*eben/*ja/JA/*doch/DOCH spielt? whether he {MP} plays “Will he play (what do you guess)? (deliberative question, allowing MP, autonomous) b Ob er {*MPl} spielt *(, ist nicht gesagt) (subordinated, not allowing MP, non-autonomous) Following Kaiser (2014) as well as Kaiser/Struckmeier (2015), the claim that these sentences are subordinated is a mistake purely syntactically motivated theory of STs is bound to make. As shown before, sentences that seem to display virtually the same syntactic structures can differ in other factors, at least in prosody (cf. 5) and in MPs (cf. 6). As soon as prosodic (corrective accent, intonation) contours and the occurrence of illocution motivated MPs as classification factors, Evans’ definition of “prima facie” subordination is avoided. However, the list of STs has to be extended and new necessary criteria for their identification have to be applied as indicated. 6. The role of German modal particles in identifying STs. Modal particles are grammatical elements acting as free heads (Abraham 2014, 2015). Struckmeier (2014) assumes that MPs are partial spell outs of sentence-type related features (a functionally expressed assumption going back to Altmann (1993: 1008; 2005: 172). According to Abraham (2014), MPs rooted in the illocutive category of speaker deixis, obtains the highest scope in the sentence.4 See Fig. 4.

Prefield A

Comp FIN dass

B

Wer weiß (denn), Who knows Er

C



Hat

C’



Gib (/Tu) hat

D

that hat

Left MF +anaphoric er den Kindern he the kids

MP *ja/ *denn JA/ DENN

[VP Right MF V]VP -anaphoric Schnapps gegeben hat? liquor given has

seinen Kindern er den Kindern den Kindern er

ja/ eben

Schnapps

gegeben.

denn

Schnapps

gegeben?

doch eben ja/ eben

Schnapps!



Schnapps

(/geben). gegeben.

Seinen KINDERN Fig. 4: MP positions in sundry sentence types

4

The reason why MPs with the highest clausal scope are located in the middle of the German sentence is opaque. However, the fact that its place is in the left middle field, which is reserved for topics and discursively anaphoric material is telling. It opens the structural space for material in the domain left-adjacent/prior to the CP under discussion.

Despite their positions, MPs seem to be intimately tied to sentence-type properties: MPs can only occur in certain sentence types in German. As Thurmaier (2013) has shown, the following restrictions hold for the occurrence of MPs in sentences: o No individual MP occurs in all STs o No individual ST hosts each of the MPs Furthermore, the following characteristics hold for MPs: o MPs are heads of their source lexicals in four distinct categorial status: focus particles, coordinators, adverbials, and strong connectors (interjections) (Abraham 2003). o The lexical source properties of the MPs determine the linear order of multiple occurrence of MPs in terms of their distinct scopal reaches (Abraham 2003). o The canonic assumptions about the interrelation between MPs and STs are not confirmed by the data. For example, the MP denn canonically bound to questions may not turn up in interrogative forms (yes-no as well as w-interrogatives, albeit carrying exclamatives import. o Modal particles contribute to the set of ST properties (Abraham 2012, 2014; Struckmeier 2014), distinguishing, for example, (6a) from (6b). Independent of theoretical basics, both Abraham (2014) and Struckmeier (2014) claim that the distribution of MPs are restricted on the basis of formal properties of the prefield (the cartographic extension of CP) and the left clausal bracket, i.e. Comp or FIN. For example, in purely functional terms, the occurrence of the MP doch (‘though’) denotes the pragmatic function of a rhetorical question as in (8a) (directive meaning). However, in feature alignment terms, the same function for this rhetorical question in (8a) is denoted by the feature specification of C0[-wh]. Since occupation of the prefield is limited to y/n-questions and imperatives, it is assumed that ST-respective features intervene between the prefield and Co. See (9a-d). [MPs underlined; =empty prefield/SpecCP] (9) Ich warte noch ein wenig auf ihn. I wait still a little for him ‘I’ll be waiting a little longer for him.’ (a)  Ihr wartet doch noch ein wenig auf ihn?! you wait MP still a little for him ‘You’ll be waiting a little longer for him?! (b) * Wartet ihr doch auch noch ein wenig auf ihn? wait you MP also still a little for him 'Do you also yet wait a little for him?' (c) *Wer wartet doch auch noch ein wenig auf ihn? who waits MP also still a little for him 'Who is waiting a little longer for him?' (d)  Wartet Ihr doch auch noch ein wenig auf ihn! wait you MP also still a little for him ‘Go ahead, wait a little longer for him!’

(rhetorical, [-wh])

(*rhetorical, [+wh]) (intended) (*rhetorical, [+wh]) (intended) (directive, [-wh])

However, as Kaiser/Struckmeier (2015) have claimed, properties of the left bracket and prefield are not sufficient to determine completely, which MPs are used

in a specific sentence type. It is rather the other way around. The constitution of certain STs even requires the insertion of specific MPs. See (10)-(11). (10) a Ob er es wohl weiß?! whether he MP knows 'Will he know? (You may not know)'! b Ob er es weiß? whether he knows (11) a Wäre ich König ... were I king 'If I was a king...' b Wäre ich doch König! were I MP king 'If only I was a king!'

(deliberative, autonomous question)

(embedded question, elided matrix)

(conditional protasis, elided apodosis)

(autonomous exclamative)

The fact that MPs are restricted to certain STs (in the sense of Thurmeier 2013) means that not only have MPs to be part of a theory of STs. It also means that there has to an intervention path between features of matrix C heads and subordinated C heads, indicating sameness. Notice that does not hold for lexical adverbials with almost identical meaning. Compare (12c) with (12d). The line of argument is pursued by Kaiser/Struckmeier (2015). (12) a Es ist so, dass es immer regnet. Pres-Pres it is such that it always rains 'It's the case that it always rains' b ??Es ist so, dass es immer regnete. Pres-Past it is such that it always rained 'It's the case that it always rained.' (intended, but conflicting tenses) c Es ist wohl so, dass es immer regnete Pres-Past it is MP such that it always rained 'It's the case that it always rained, I assume.' (MP wohl waives tense conflict) d ??Es ist nehme ich an so, dass es immer regnete Pres-Past it is as I assume such that it always rained 'It's the case that it always rained, I assume.' (intended; adverbial nehme ich an does not waive tense conflict) The fact that lexical adverbials rather than grammatical MPs do not waive tense conflicts (see (12b-c) vs. (12d)) is indicative of the fundamentally different status of lexical and grammatical modal material: grammatical head status (MP; cf. Abraham 2012, 2014) is operative due to its illocutive status (as extending highest sentential scope; in our case with respect to tense: structurally above clause Tense), whereas lexical material is constrained to its clause internal linear scope position (below clausal Tense). 7. Another ST identifying criterion: Clausal boundary intonation Given the traditional assumption for German and Dutch that empty prefields (as in Fig. 1 and 3) host invisible sentential operators (in the sense of cartographical syntax (Rizzi 2005)) for V1-questions, V1-declaratives, and V1-imperatives, illustrations such as (1)-(4) and (9a), (8a) do not necessarily denote subordinates. They may just as well stand for abstract semantic-pragmatic properties. The truth values of the respective clauses cannot be evaluated by inspecting a world under discussion.

Whether this means that exclamatives need to be raised to a status equal to assertion, question, or imperative, remains an open question that needs to further be investigated. In terms of speech act properties with forms (e.g. linear order, V-final) and functional criteria (e.g. placement of MPs, illocutive autonomy) in their own right, they are no doubt as autonomous as Let us reevaluate the criteria that we saw matter. Basic assumptions about the locutive meaning of intonational patterns mainly follow (Gunlogson (2001: 36) and Truckenbrodt 2013): Rising declaratives commit the Addressee to a CG with p as expressed, whereas falling declaratives commit the Speaker to p as expressed ruling out the alternative, ¬p. Furthermore, the intonational component will specify which participant is committed: the Addressee in the case of the rise, the Speaker in the case of a fall. From this follows that Rising declaratives fail to commit the Speaker to p, but they signal commitment to p on the part of the Addressee.5 Notice (13) substantiating these assumption for the illustrations above. (13) The autonomous V1 structure supportive of the exclamative has accent and intonation in its own right. Boundary tones (e.g., L% or  in (9a)/(8a) vs. H% or  in (9b)/(8b)) signal truth value assessments (cf. Truckenbrodt 2013). As we have seen, intentional L+H* or  distinguishes (9a) from (8a). Default sentential accent needs to be kept distinct from corrective (contrastive) accent (cf. (9a) (9b)). Consider the canonic sentence types A-E in Fig. 5. Note that A’ and E’ cannot be accommodated with respect to the syntactic-semantic definitions in A-E above. Notice also that the tone qualification is independent of the placement of clausal default accent/DA (Cinque 1993: on the head of the deepest constituent in VP). Like the imperative in C’, A’ as well as E’ represent shifts from the propositional to the discourse mode. In the discourse mode, speaker and addressee as well as others occupy roles of argument realizers exclusive of one another or mutually contradicting each other with equal or divided challenging force. See Fig.5. [Again, the field division in Fig.3 equals syntactic bracketing or binary tree graphs. What is amiss is the division between head and specifier status.

As word order and movement alternations as well as corrective accent cannot be taken tob e alike across languages. Our analyses cannot be taken to pertain to more than German and, possibly, English. Gunlogson (2001: 157) signals the same word of warning. 5

Prefield A

Wer weiß,

Left bracket: FINITE dass

A’



Dass

B

Er

Hht

C



Hat

C’



Hat

C’’

Und

OB/*ob

C”’  D

E

Seinen KINDERN Seinen Kindern Wem

E’

Was

D’

Gib (/Tu) hat hat hat hat

Left MF

Right MF [VP

er seinen Kindern *ja/*den Schnapps er seinen Kindern doch/DOCH Schnapps seinen Kindern ja/eben Schnapps er seinen Kindern Den Schnapps er seinen Kindern *denn/DOCH Schnapps er seinen Kindern DOCH/*doch/S chnapps deinen Kindern doch Schnapps! er ja/eben Schnapps er *ja/*eben Schnapps er Den Schnapps

Right bracket: Lexical V]VP gegeben hat? gegeben hat! gegeben. gegeben? gegeben! gegeben hat!

 (/geben) gegeben. gegeben?! gegeben?

Clause stress Tone DA-subordinate high-low  CA-V1 exclamative low-high  DA-matrix high-low  DA-y-n-question low-high  CA-V1 exclamative high-low  VF/CA dependent high-low  DA-imperative low-high  CA-matrix high-low  DA-matrix low-high  DA w-question high-low 

er seinen Kindern *denn/doch/ gegeben! CA–deliberative DOCH question Schnapps high-low  Fig.5: German sentence structure in alignment with clause type, speech act, and subordination [CA (bold) = corrective accent, DA=default sentence accent]

As A’,, D’ and E’ in Fig.5 show, boundary intonation can influence ST definition. In line with ruckenbrodt (2013) and Kaiser (2014), we assume that the interpretation of autonomous clauses is at least determined also by their prosody. This happens in ways as the following ones. (14) In V2 sentences, [-wh] material in the prefield (canonically stressed except when subject) will lead to a potential correspondence between the proposition of the sentence and a state of affairs in the discourse world, as illustrated in D (in line with Lohnstein 2000; cf. A-E in Section 4.2). (15) However, as Kaiser demonstrates, V1 structures (with an empty prefield) are not necessarily questions (or imperatives), but rather show another, abstract semantic-pragmatic property: None of them are intended to have their truth value evaluated vis-à-vis a discourse world by the addressee (cf., similarly, Reis & Wöllstein 2010). See the following cases of STs: a. V1 questions/imperatives (the two STs in line A-E above) b. Conditional protasis (proposition not evaluated vis-à-vis a specific world) c. V1 exclamatives (inform addressee about the thought process of S) (16) Subjunctive V1 definitions (converse word-to-world fit applying: ‘saying so makes it so’) (17) On top of abstract syntacto-semantic meaning, prosody adds meaning aspects of the ST (cf. Gunlogson 2001, Baumann 2006, Peters 2006, Truckenbrodt 2013b, Kaiser 2014): a. With a high accent tone (H* or ), the speaker S signals that the proposition is intended as a part of the common ground. b. A low accent tone (L* or ), on the other hand, signals that the proposition will not become part of CG. c. A high boundary tone (H% or ) signals that S will will not commit to p. d. A low boundary tone (L% or ) signals that S commits to p. Fig. 6 charts this out more clearly. Intonation Accent Boundary tone

Force high-H* low-L* high-H% low-H%

Sp committed to CG on p +  0 0

Sp committed to ASSERT(p) 0 0  +

Fig. 6: Distribution of accent and boundary intonation with respect to speaker involvement. (18) The insertion of MP does not follow from the canonic occupation of the predicate in Comp (for declaratives, y/n. and w-questions or imperatives), but from the autonomous status of the sentence. See C’ in Fig.5, where the denn, canonically typical of questions, is out, while doch (and DOCH), typical of assertions, is possible. Thus, the placement of MPs characterizes an illocutive type, not a syntactic prerequisite such as matrix word order (Abraham 2012, 2014; but differently: Thurmair 2013). Since only independent sentences have illocutive status in their own right (autonomy), exclamatives of type C’ (as well as all other (+w) exclamatives) are autonomous STs irrespective of V-final and the occupation of C by a subordinator. Lexical subordinators and V-final as such have nothing to say about illocutive force (in terms of presupposition vs, assertion).

8. Applications with respect to Intonation The most striking ST-changing sentences are those with an empty prefield starting with a subjunction. To the best of our insight, no one has ever asked why, given the solid list of lexical subjunctions, only dass, ob and wenn introduce autonomous versions. There are no autonomous STs introduced by obgleich ‘although’, während ‘while, whereas’, nachdem ‘after’, als ‘when”, among others.6 8.1. V1 and corrective accent The first twhree examples serve the purpose of showing corrective accent and boundary intonation on normal assertions, questions, and coordinated main clauses. See (19a-c). (19) a Fühlt Hans den Schmerz?  feels H. the pain 'Does H. feel the pain?' b Fühlt Hans den Schmerz , (... geht es ihm nicht gut) feels Hans the pain (... goes it him not well) 'If Hans feels the pain,.(he will not be fine) c Hat dr Mittagr an Buuch,  (...würds Wettr ruuch) has the Mittager a tummy (turns the weather rough) 'If the Mittag mountain has a tummy, the weather will turn rough’ (popular weather prediction; High Alemannic Montafon) In all three STs, y/n-question, indirect question, and corrdination, there is the same prosodic characteristic. Now see how this changes on V1-exclamatives in (20a-e). In (20f-j) we demonstrate how minimal changes of stress and intonation accompany functional shifts toward exclamatives and thereby to speaker and hearer involved more strongly. VF=verum focus] (20) a Hat DER Muskeln! // HAT der Muskeln!  (corrective stress, VF) has he muscles 'Oooh, what muscles he has!'! (exclamative accent yields exclamatives assertion) b Hat die BEINE!  has he legs 'Oooh, what legs she has!'! (exclamative assertion) c Mach BEINE!  make legs 'Get lost!‘ d Mach JA BEINE!  (strong exclamative assertion) make MP legs 'Get lost by all means!‘ e IST der doof!  (VF, strong exclamative assertion) is he stupid f Ist DER vielleicht doof!  (strong exclamative assertion) is he MP stupid 'My goodness, how stupid he is!' (exclamative commits S 6

Thurmair (2013: 643) limits her discussion to MPs as ST-constituting elements. See (11a,b) below how MPs often set the ST-changing mode from questions to exclamatives.

f g h i j

Ist der DOOF?  Sei DOOF!  Sei doch DOOF!  Ist der vielleicht DOOF?  is he perhaps stupid Ist DER vielleicht doof!  is he MP stupid

strongly to truth of p) (y/n-question, DA) (imperative) (imperative exclamation) (y/n-question, DA) (exclamative, CA)

Consider further examples for V1 STs and the respective prosody characteristics. (21) ø Treibt Max Unfug? does Max weird things ‘Is Max doing weird things?’ (yes/no question: Does Justus feed the rhino? cf. 8a) Prosody L* H-^H% Interpretation L* H should not add p to the CG (unclear, whether p is true) S does not commit to p H%  (22)

ø Treibt Max wohl keinen Unfug? does Max MP weird things ‘Hopefully, Max is not doing weird things?’

Autonomous - Question form with MP wohl importing desiderative function opting for p (keinen Unfug treiben ‘do not do weird things’) as the intended meaning. Prosody L* H-^H% like (15) L* H% 

Interpretation H should not add p to the CG (unclear, whether p is true) S does not commit to p

The only difference to (13) lies in the fact that MP wohl signals Addr need not commit to either p or ¬p. (23)

ø Treibt Max Unfug (, (dann) schicken wir ihn nachhause) does Max weird things (we’ll send him home) ‘If Max is doing weird things, we will send him home’ (non-autonomous: protasis of conditional: If Max does wrong we will send him home...) Prosody L+H* H-% Interpretation H* Add p to CG: In every world, where p is true... … but S does not commit to p’s truth H%  (Note: prosodic contour slightly different from 15, Kaiser & Baumann 2013) And taking up (12a) once again: (24) ø HAT der Muskeln! Hat DER Muskeln! has he muscles ‘What strong muscles he has!’ (autonomous V1 exclamative)

Prosody L+H* L-% H* L% 

Interpretation Add p to CG S commits to p

On a line of interim generalization, one might say that one common functional characteristic is that strong exclamatives commit S strongly to the truth of p. Notice, in particular, how CA in (12j) shifts the ST status from question in (12i) to exclamative in (12j). In (12l), vielleicht ‘perhaps’ is an adverbial, while in (12j) the same lexical receives MP-status. A first generalization might be that ST-shifts, usually ending up as exclamatives, are the result of dissociation from normal prosody distribution. Dependent V-final word order structures usually end in a low intonational contour. V-final exclamatives, by contrast, raise intonation to emphasize the speaker’s commitment to p. 8.2. Empty prefield and autonomous subjunctions Autonomous subjunctions are made of V-final orders with subjunctions in the left bracket and where matrix clauses are elided. See how (26a) and (26b) differ in terms of their intonational contours. (25) a Ob er kommt?  whether he MP comes b Ob er wohl kommt?!  whether he MP comes 'Will he come? (You may not know)'!

(autonomous y/n-question) (deliberative autonomous question)

The following example replicates (7) with the complement subjunction dass ‘that’. (??, ist allgemein bekannt) (is generally well-known) (exclamative sentence, corrective stress) b Dass er (*ja) immer zu spät kommt -  (, ist allgemein bekannt) (non autonomous subordinate, only default clause stress, no exclamative)

(26) a Dass er (ja) immer zu SPÄT kommt(!) - that he always too late comes ‘Oh, that he must always come too late!’

8.3. Filled prefield and autonomy as rhetorical questions ST status and IS on this prerequisite concern above all shifts from assertions to rhetorical questions. [[wh] distinguishes between main sentences with w-words and the ones without a w-word in the prefield; this classificatory criterion was introduced by Truckenbrodt 2013).] (27)

Ich koche noch eine Suppe. I cook yet a soup ‘I’m making some soup.’ (a) Ihr esst doch auch noch einen Teller?  (MP; rhetorical, [-wh]) you eat MP also yet one bowl ‘... you’ll have another bowl, too, won’t you?’ (b) * Esst ihr doch auch noch einen Teller?? (MP, *rhetorical, [-wh]) eat you MP also more a bowl 'Will you also have another bowl?' (intended) (c) *Wer isst doch auch noch einen Teller? (MP, *rhetorical, [+wh])

who eats MP also more a bowl 'Who will have another bowl?' (d) Esst Ihr doch auch noch einen Teller!  eat you MP also more one bowl ‘Go ahead, have another bowl!’

(intended) (MP, directive, [-wh])

(27a-d) yields the following distributional picture. [Parenthesis in () signals the intonation contour that would prevail without MP insertion] ExamGrammatical MP rhetorical question ple (28)a  + + (28)b * + (28)c * + (28)d  + - /directive Fig. 6: MP insertion and intonational readings

[w] + -

intonation  () () 

This distribution adds another parameter: [w] standing for prefield occupation by wwords (in questions). However, MP insertion is the determining parameter in both (28b) and (28c) in that it overwrites the parameters [w] and intonation. doch ‘though’ is not compatible with straightforward questions as in (28b,c), but it is with rhetorical and directive questions as in (28a,d).

±𝒘 -w -w +w -w -w +w -w

Prefield Wer weiß (denn), Er

  Seinen KINDERN Wem

FIN dass

Left MF er seinen Kindern

hat Hat Gib (/Tu) hat

seinen Kindern er seinen Kindern deinen Kindern

hat Dass

er er seinen Kindern

er

Right MF [VP *ja/*denn Schnapps ja/eben Schnapps den Schnapps doch Schnapps! ja/eben Schnapps

Lexical V]VP gegeben hat? gegeben. gegeben?

Clause stress H*

Boundary tone H%



L* L’ H*

L% H% H%

(/geben) gegeben.

H*

L%

H* H*

H% L%

L*

L%

den Schnapps gegeben? doch/DOCH gegeben hat!  Schnapps +w Was hat er seinen Kindern *denn/doch/DOCH gegeben! Schnapps Fig.7: Intonational Structure identification based on Truckenbrodts (2013) compository criteria

9. MPs in dependent clauses and non-finites It was argued explicitly that only logical subjunctions allow for MP insertion.* The reason is that only logical adverbial clauses possess illocutive force in their own right, whereas temporal and local subjunctions derive their illocutive force from the matrix illocution (Abraham 2012, 2014). The best illustration is provided by the subjunction während which is ambiguous temporal ‘while’ and logical ‘whereas’. This dichotomy is shared by restrictive as opposed to appositive relative clauses. (28) a

b (29) a b

Er telephonierte, während er (*ja/eben)den Wagen lenkte he called while he the car drove (temporal) ‘He called while driving his car.’ ER telephonierte, während SIE ja/eben schlief, he called whereas she she slept (adversative) Die Männer, die (*ja/eben/doch) am Zaun standen, sahen nichts. (restrictive) the men who {MP} by the fence stood saw nothing Männer, die ja/eben/doch alle Voyeure sind, sahen nichts. men who {MP} by the fence stood saw nothing (appositive)

As before, the generalization is that MP carrying sentences must be autonomous. Only then do they project illocutive force licensing MP. The autonomy in (20b) resides in the coordinative status of the während embedding (ER tepephonierte, und SIE schlief ‘HE called, wheres SHE slept’), while no such coordinative version applies for (20a). In the same vein, unlike restrictive relative clauses, appositive ones allow for coordinated alternatives (Männer, die… , und sie sahen nichts ‘Men, who .. , and they saw nothing). 10. Exclamatives as a sentence type The exclamative comes in different sentence types (Postma 1996, Truckenbrodt 2013, Delfitto/Sorini 2014). The central idea in this literature is the idea that exclamatives express a violation of some norm defined in terms of the speaker’s belief (cf. Zanuttini/Portner 2003, Rett 2011). As an important asset of this violation, the exclamative expresses an extreme degree. More particularly, Rett (2011) distinguishes two kinds of exclamations: sentence exclamations, whereby the violated expectation concerns propositional content as a whole, and a class including wh-exclamatives, inversion exclamatives and nominal exclamatives. The violated expectation concerns the degree at which a certain property is assumed to hold along a pre-established (quantitative or qualitative) scale. Delfitto/Sorini (2014) view exclamatives as generated in the syntax by displacement of a DP endowed with the exceptional-degree feature to the Specifier of a dedicated Degree head located to the left of the Complementizer. The authors to emphasize that this analysis of exclamatives is essentially modular, since different exclamative syntactic formats may give rise to uniquely distinct logical forms feeding the unitary semantics associated with the exclamative speech act. Let us have a look at some specific properties. Exclamatives may contain an expletive negation, which escapes logical processing. (30) a b c

Was er (den) Händlern (nicht) alles GLAUBT! what he (the) merchants (not) all believes Was er (den) Händlern (nicht) alles nicht glaubt! what he (the) merchants (not) all believes Wäre das (nicht) nicht/ungünstig!?

d

Would this (not) not/infelicitous Was er (den) Händlern (nicht) alles keineswegs/kaum/in keiner Weise/absolut nicht glaubt! what he (the) merchants (not) all on no account/hardly/absolutely not believes

The expletive negation is unfocusable and does not enter into the processing for double negation. The negation preceding the predicate is a maximal projection as illustrated in (30d), while the expletive nicht is a grammatical head not participating in the LF calculation. Compare (31), where the same holds. Notice that (31c) is of the exclamative sentence type only with expletive nicht and any of the likewise possible MPs, bloß or doch. Without these special illocutionary elements, (31c) would simply mark a y/n-question. (31) a b c

Dass er *eben/*ja/*schon/*vielleicht/*nichtEXP mich bloß NICHT/nicht sieht/sieht! that he {MP} (not) me only not sees Dass er mich bloß/eben/ja/schon/vielleicht nicht/nicht sieht/sieht!! that he (not) me only not sees Wäre das *(bloß/doch) nichtEXP nicht/unwahr?! would be that (only/though) not not/untrue

Modal particles are selected preceding the expletive nicht as in (32a-d). They are not in (31a) in the position to the left of vP, while they are grammatical and interpretable in (31b). (32) a b c d

Was er (den) Händlern eben/ja/schon/vielleicht (nicht) alles GLAUBT! what he (the) merchants {MP} (not) all believes Was er (den) Händlern eben/ja/schon/vielleicht nicht) alles nicht glaubt! what he (the) merchants {MP} (not) all believes Wäre das eben/ja/schon/vielleicht (nicht) nicht/ungünstig!? Would this {MP} (not) not/infelicitous Was er (den) Händlern eben/ja/schon/vielleicht (nicht) alles keineswegs/kaum/ in keiner weise/absolut nicht glaubt! what he (the) merchants {MP} (not) all on no account/hardly/absolutely not believes

(30) and (32) are clearly exclamatives. We note that for each of (32a-d), there is a degree meaning paralleling the exclamatives character. What therefore determines the exclamative speech act in (32a-d) is the structural adjunct nature of the extraction slot of the wh-word Was. We may say that a structural extraction slot correlates with the interrogative interpretation of was, whereas Adjunct extraction is tied to the exclamative reading. Exclamatives appear to be limited to such wh-forms. Cf. (31a), which, counter to (31b), is odd. Furthermore, expletive nicht (Krifka 2010), while not on a par with the MPs as far as typing an exclamative goes, cannot occur without the two MPs. it takes nothing off the illocutionary force of the Yet, in co-occurrence with the two MPs, bloß and doch. it takes nothing off their illocutionary force. On the other hand, expletive nicht in (31c) triggers a rhetoric question and thus is also an illocutionary type shifter. It makes an erotetic question of a normal y/n-question. Notice that this suggests a hierarchical ranking between rhetoric questions and exclamatives. The latter speech act requires type shifting by the force of MPs and in cooperation with the two MPs, while rhetoric questions emerge on the strength of expletive nicht by itself. Exclamatives require more illocutionary force than rhetoric questions.

Building on Colins/Postal (2015), Delfitto (2015) claims that free choice any, as found in modal contexts of possibility, should be analyzed as in (33b) with DP containing negative polar any. (33) a b c

Any student can pass the exam [[NEG1(SOME) student]1: [S NEG2 [S DP1 can read the book]] *Any student must pass the exam

Notice that expletive NEG1 is licensed by NEG2 in the S-compartment in (33b). (33b) reads as ‘there is no single student that cannot read the book’. A corresponding reading is not disposable for deontic (33c): ‘there is no single student that must not read the book’. This appears to be due to the fact that negated must (at least in English) does not retain the same modal source as the positive obligator. ‘no single(x)’ with reference to ‘must not(x,V)’ yields neither an expletive function nor a compensatory effect on double negation. However, see German (34), which has no direct correspondence to negatively polar any and which allows proper parsing between kein einziger ‘not a single one’ and nicht dürfen ‘must not’ mediated by expletive nicht. (34) Da ist kein einziger Student, der das Buch (nichtEXPL) NICHT lesen darf. there is no single student who the book not read must (=’is allowed to read’) Expletive nicht cannot be focused and must precede sentential and focused (rhematic) nicht. The two forms – that with or without expletive nicht – are identical in meaning. nichtEXPL and sentential-rhematic nicht. Counter to standard processing double negation, they do not cancel each other. However, the very same holds for the so-called double negation in Austrian-Bavarian dialects (Weiß 1989). Cf. (35), where the two sentences differ with respect to whether the negation is expletive as in (35a) or not as in (35b). MPs are possible in either case. (35) a

b

dass-a (ja/eben/aber) koa Chance net/*NET ghobt hat dass er keine Chance nicht gehabt hat that he no chance not had had dass-a (ja/eben/aber) die Chance *net/net ghobt hat dass er diese Chance nicht gehabt hat that he this chance not had had

The second nicht in (35) cannot be focused and is triggered by the occurrence of the indefinite negation keine ‘not (a single) one’. Is this occurrence of expletive net on a par with the previous ones? In (35), the expletive is licensed by the first negation occurrence, koa (Chance). In the previous cases the licensing direction was obverse: the licensor occurred later. Quite fundamentally, Delfitto (2015) claims on the basis of these and other data of comparative and temporal status that their syntactic representations are not suppressed at the interpretive interface, but maintained and weighed against the logical representations to which they give rise and that feed the inferential systems. 11. The deeper structural status of wh-exclamatives Let us extend the range of Illustrations of expletive nicht in German (gleaning from Dutch examples in Postma 1996 – notice that Dutch does not reflect German expletive nicht)). Notice that, although expletive nicht is always optional, it strengthens the exclamative speech act character of the sentences.

(36) a b c

Was Sie (nur/bloß (nicht)) alles zu sagen haben! … exclamative what you (only (not)) all to say have Was/Wie lachten sie sich (vielleicht (nicht)) da den Bauch voll! What/how laughed they themselves (perhaps (not)) there the tommy full Was dachte sich der Sepp da (ja (nicht)) wieder dabei! what thought himself the Sepp there (yes (not)) again about

The following restrictions appear to hold (Postma 1996: 203). Notice that Was ‘what’ cannot be the lexical question word licensing a CP-question. (37) Was ‘what’ is an open variable. Its interpretation is not determined by the lexcon, but by the following syntactic configuration (Postma 1996, building on Bennis 1995. EXCL=exclamatives, WH=wh-question): a If the quantificational domain is CP: ⇒ * WH/EXCL b if was is extracted from an argument position: ⇒ WH-reading c if was is extracted from an adjunct position: ⇒ EXCL-reading d If the quantificational domain is VP: ⇒ -reading In many cases, the strict structural determination of meaning as given in (37) is obscured. For instance, a sentence like (38) is ambiguous: it can be interpreted in (38a) as an exclamative and in (38b) as an interrogation. The variant (38c) with the speech act ongoing progressive receives no interpretation. (38) Was/Wie hatten sie (mir) da (nicht/*NICHT (viel/*VIEL)) zu lachen! what had they there to laugh a 'How much they laughed!' exclamative + manner b 'For what (reason) are you laughing?' interrogative + causal c *How much are you laughing?' Evidence for the empty preposition in the causal reading 'for what' is the fact that the interpretation ' PEMPTY what' is favored by the addition of dummy daar. In German and Dutch, dummy da/daar typically license ethical datives, i.e. pronouns with an empty dative preposition as in (39). Notice that mir ‘(for) me’ does not refer to the subject but the speaker of the utterance (cf. Abraham 1972). (39) Er stand da und lachte mir(/?dir) da eins! … Hij stond me daar te lachen! … he laughed/stood me one/to laugh

mir = ethical speaker dative Dutch (Postma 1996: 209, fn. 3)

German/Dutch ‘he stood me there to laugh’ means 'He laughed and I have a specific concern for it’. Evidence for the empty preposition in the causal reading 'for what' is the fact that the interpretation 'PEMPTY what' is favored by the addition of dummy German da, Dutch daar. Postma (1996: 209) surmises that, at some deeper level, ethical dative constructions and exclamatives are related. The determining argument for adjunct status of Was is its Wie-variant. This triggers the exclamative-manner reading in (38a), i.e. as a VP-adjunct 'much'. The interrogative reading (38b), on the other hand, only obtains with causal interpretation, i.e. Warum/Aus welchem Grund 'for what (reason)'. In other words, it is assumed that there is an empty preposition after Was ‘what’. Was is extracted from a structural position and raised to the topical position.

Compare (40). This renders (39) in full agreement with the interpretive generalization in (38). What Bennis (1995) leaves undiscussed, but what Postma (1996) highlights, is the precise meaning of exclamative sentences like (38a). Postma observes that the quantification involved is not just the exclamative effect, but that, in addition to it, the sentence receives a 'much' reading, i.e. a quantification of high-degree, as indicated in the glosses of (38a). It is assumed that quantification of high-degree ('much') and the exclamative have an underlying configuration in common. The exclamative will turn out to be a quantification of high-degree at the propositional level. Back to the account of what Was ‘what’ precisely is. Most strikingly, the adjunct Was may go with the für ein-expansion as a visible complementizer in DP (see Kayne 1994). We may go with Bennis who locates the triggering factor in the structural/adjunct nature of the extraction slot of Dutch wat ‘what’. A structural extraction slot correlates with the interrogative interpretation of wat. On the other hand, adjunct extraction is tied to the exclamative reading, as illustrated in (40). (40) extraction slot reading for ‘what’: a Wat lachte Jan toch! Wat Jan toch lachte! Was LACHTE Hans doch! Was Hans doch LACHTE! what laughed John 'John laughed a lot', b Wat zag Jan? what saw John Was sah Hans? c Wat Jan zag? d Wat Jan zag? Was Hans sah? Was Hans sah!

tone /\ /\ /\ /\

slot sentence type adjunct slot ⇒ matrix EXCL adjunct slot ⇒ dependent EXCL adjunct slot ⇒ matrix EXCL adjunct slot ⇒ dependent EXCL

intended: EXCL /\ structural slot ⇒ matrix INTERROG /\ structural slot ⇒ matrix INTEROG \/ structural slot ⇒ depdt. INTEROG \/ structural ⇒ dependent erotetic /\/ structural ⇒ dependent erotetic /\ structural ⇒ dependent EXCL

As for a possible Comp slot in DP see (41)-(42).

(41) a b (42) a b

Wasi hast du [CP ti für [Bücher]] gekauft? what have you for books bought [Was für [Bücher]] hast du gekauft? what for books] have you bought Was hast du [CP ti 0 [Bücher]] gekauft! what have you books bought *[Was 0 [Bücher]] hast du gekauft! [Wat 0 [‘n boeken]] heb je gekocht what books have you bought

tone CompDP /\ yes

Speech act interrogative

/\

yes

interrogative

\/\

no

exclamative

/\

no no

German Dutch exclamative

Given that noun phrases may contain a complementizer, it may be argued that the was für-construction in (41) demonstrates an overt Comp realization within the noun phrase (with für being the complementizer) and that the wh-word Was/Wat is located in SpecCP. For German Was and Dutch wat to be extracted from the noun phrase was für Bücher/wat een boeken, Was/Wat undergoes movement from SpecVP to SpecCP. Given that a noun phrases contain a second position, V2, just as clauses,

we can say that the German was für/Dutch wat voor phrase realizes an overt V2-effect within the noun phrase. And, as Postma (1996) argues, the interrogative / exclamative alternation corresponds to a specific configuration within the noun phrase. In languages such as English and French, the exclamative does not seem to correspond to any overt property within the noun phrase. In these languages, exclamative and interrogative wh-sentences exhibit different properties at the sentential level, as exemplified in (32)-(33). By contrast, in German and Dutch they do not. Compare (32)-(33) with (43a-d). The finite predicate is underlined. (43) a b c d

Quelle histoire m'a-t-il racontée? what story to-me has he told How stupid is he? Quelle histoire il m'a racontée! what story he to-me has told How stupid he is!

V2

interrogative

V2 no V2

interrogative exclamative

no V2

exclamative

These data indicate that there is an interaction between the interpretation of Wh and the V2-phenomenon. Based on the data exploitation above, we follow Postma (1996) in formulating (44) as a tentative generalization on the structural difference between interrogatives and exclamatives. (44) a b

Wh in SpecCP accompanied by a complementizer (in V2) induces the structural interrogative reading. Wh in SpecCP without the accompanying instantiation of the complementizer (in V2) induces the exclamative reading.

Given our observations above, (44) can further reformulated as (45) (Postma 1996: 311). (45) a A specifier (SpecXP) is structural if the head X° is lexical b A specifier (SpecXP) is an adjunct if the head X° is not lexical From this follows that the context of an exclamative reading not in terms of extraction slots or landing sites, but in terms of chains can be rephrased. See (46) built further from (38). (46) German Was and Dutch Wat are open variables. Their interpretation is determined by the following configurations (Postma 1996: 214): a If the quantificational domain is CP: ⇒ WH or EXCL if was/wat is part of a structural chain ⇒ WH-reading if was/wat is part of an adjunct chain ⇒ EXCL-reading b If the quantificational domain is VP ⇒ existential/-reading As already noticed by Bennis (1995), the adjunct status of wat ‘what’ alone is not sufficient to license this exclamative use. Additional movement to SpecCP is necessary unless, as is illustrated by the different grammaticality appreciations, yields in (38i-iv), a modal particle intervenes. (47) Dutch: (i) 7

*Jij hebt [wat 0 ‘n boeken] gekocht!7

‘n is clitic of the indefinite article een ‘a(n)’ for an ellipsis of ‘n soort van ‘a sort of’, where van ‘of’ = C+T=af/of + ’n as in die gek van 'n Jan, German der Narr von einem Hans ‘this fool of a John’ with

German: (ii) (iii)

(iv)

you have what a books bought *Du hast was Bücher gekauft! you have what books bought OK Du hast (aber/ja) (ganz schön) was Bücher gekauft! you have (but(yes) (quite nicely) what books bought 'You bought quite many books!' OK Was hast du doch ganz schön (viele) Bücher gekauft what have you though quite nicely (many) books bought

This shows that accompanying fronting of WH to SpecCP of the matrix clause is obligatory in exclamatives unless the sentence is illocutionarily enriched by adding the modal particles Dutch maar to wat ‘n boeken and German aber ‘but’ or doch ‘though’. The sentence with the wh-constituent in situ becomes grammatical as in (48a,b) and (47ii-iii). Quite interestingly and beyond a natural account for the time being, the exclamative intonation is not necessarily present. However, what counts is the quantification expressed in the English translation by 'many' or elative ‘very’ (German ganz schön (viele)), i.e. a quantification of higher degree over DP. (48) (39) a Hij heeft maar [wat ´n boeken] gelezen Er hat ja [ganz schön was Bücher] gelesen he has yes.PART what books read 'He has indeed read many a book' b Die man is maar wat dom! Dieser Mensch ist aber was dumm! that man is but.PART what stupid 'that man is indeed very stupid'

…

… Dutch German

…

… Dutch German

We then obtain the interpretive rules in (49) (Postma 1996: 213). (49) High-Degree Quantification is induced by an open variable in an adjunct chain a if the domain of quantification is the whole proposition ⇒ EXCL b if the domain of quantification is NP ⇒ 'many' c if the domain of quantification is AP ⇒ 'very' The interpretive schema in (49) does not only cover the alternation 'many '/'very' in terms of scope (over DP/AP), but also why a CP-domain is elative ('exclamative') and at the same time induces a lower domain quantification (very/many). At a more abstract level, interpretive theories can fruitfully generalize over syntactic structures that convey a particular interpretation and morphosyntactic structures under the word level. 10. Conclusion We have shown, we argue, two things: 1. There is no need to reclassify subjunctions in autonomous sentences as some sort of ‘discourse operator’ responsible for the shift of traditional syntactic restrictions. 2. Given the new categorial shifts in STs (subordinate form, matrix content and function), existing theories of ST need to be reconsidered and probably based on fundamentally different parameters. Let us discuss the two issues in somewhat more detail. ‘af'=C en ’n is T. It is not clear, however, why [’n] precedes Jan instead of thereafter as a low spellout of T (p.c. Gertjan Postma).

We argued that the categorial type shift from subjunction (with the required Vfinal, at least in German and Dutch) meets several technical problems: How is the clash between the V-final subordinating trigger and the status of illocutive autonomy (selection of MPs; elliptic account not possible in a great number of cases) to be overcome? Which category in the sentence does the sentence inceptive operator address to establish a licensing relation? Given clear (albeit not quite unifiable) links to prosodic peculiarities, which features agree between the discourse operator and prosody? In particular, of which nature is the difference between discourse categories and sentential ones – how do we distinguish operators on the clausal level from those of discourse? Notice that, while functional grammarians postulate such principled differences (Heine/Kaltenböck/Kuteva 2011; Heine/Kaltenböck/Kuteva fc.), but have remained vague as to a detailed implementation. Their term ‘thetical’ might capture something like a discourse operator. However, if this is the case, We would like to claim that the definition of what “prima facie” cases of subordination are is changed under whatever the new theory of STs is like – i.e. to what extent it is exceptionsless under the defining parameters employed and if it is exhaustive. We have not presented such a theory. However, what appears to be a solid conclusion. From this position follows that that some cases of insubordination do not constitute actual empirical phenomena in their own right. In line with Kaiser/Struckmeier (2015), one may consider the traditional STs as a reduction to insubordination artefacts of the definition of STs. We have demonstrated based on prior work (notably Lohnstein, Truckenbrodt, Kaiser, Struckmeier) at what points there are empirical gaps in the traditional discussions on a theory of STs. Whatever the form and dimension of such an encompassing theory of STs may be like it will not be a mono-dimensional theory based on monolithic sentence types. Whether the individual analysis of individual structures from individual languages will have to matter for the future study of true and ‘prima facie’ insubordination across languages will have to be left open at this point. However, given the abstract nature of the main parameters (illocutionary autonomy), it is expected that some fundamental properties of a cross-linguistic account as discussed above will remain. Since the selection of German MPs plays such a fundamental role in the diagnosis of autonomous illocutive force, we will chart all parameters together and align them with true and ‘false’ types of subordination. Syntax of autonomous STs

ST semantics

V2

Set of worlds accessed pvp

V1

MP selection

+

Independent Illocutive force +

Prefield occupied

ST status

+

assertion

+

+

-

+

+

-

question

V1

-imperative

VL Finally, we opened a subchapter on exclamatives in German and Dutch as a sentence type in its own right claiming that wh-exclamatives are related to propositional high degree quantification. Such quantification of high-degree (‘ganz schön

(viel)’, 'much', ‘very’) and the exclamative have an underlying configuration in common. The exclamative turns out to be a quantification of high-degree at the propositional level. References

Abraham, Werner. 1991. Discourse particles in German: How does their illocutive force come about? In Discourse Particles: Descriptive and Theoretical Investigations on the Logical, Syntactic and Pragmatic Properties of Discourse Particles in German [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 12], Werner Abraham (ed.), 203–252. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/pbns.12.08abr Ackema, Peter & Neeleman, Ad. 2004. Beyond Morphology: Interface Conditions on Word Formations. Oxford: OUP. Altmann, Hans1987). Zur Problematik der Konstitution von Satzmodi als Formtypen. In Jörg Meibauer (ed.) Satzmodus zwischen Grammatik und Pragmatik. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 22–56. Åqvist, Lennart 1965). A new approach to the logical theory of interrogatives. Uppsala: Filosofiska foreningen. Barbiers, Sjef. 2014. Syntactic doubling and deletion as a source of variation. In Linguistic Variation in the Minimalist Framework, M. Carme Picallo (ed.), 197–223. Oxford: OUP. Bartels, Christine (1997). Towards a compositional interpretation of English statement and question intonation. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Bäuerle, Rainer & Thomas E. Zimmermann 1991). Fragesätze. In Arnim von Stechow and Dieter Wunderlich (eds.) Semantik; Semantics. Berlin: de Gruyter, 333–348. Bayer, Josef & Dasgupta, Probal. In press. Emphatic Topicalization and the structure of the left periphery: Evidence from German and Bangla. Syntax. Bayer, Josef & Obenauer, Hans-Georg. 2011. Discourse particles, clause structure, and question types. The Linguistic Review 28: 449–491. DOI: 10.1515/tlir.2011. 013 Bayer, Josef 2004). Decomposing the left periphery: dialectal and cross-linguistic evidence. In Horst Lohnstein & Susanne Trissler (eds.) The syntax and semantics of the left periphery. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 59–95. Bayer, Josef. 1984. Comp in Bavarian syntax. The Linguistic Review 3: 209–274. DOI: 10.1515/tlir.1984.3.3.209 Bayer, Josef. 1996. Directionality and Logical Form: On the Scope of Focusing Particles and Wh in-situ. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-017-1272-9 Bayer, Josef. 1999. Bound focus or how can association with focus be achieved without going semantically astray? In The Grammar of Focus [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 24], Bayer, Josef. 2001. Asymmetry in emphatic topicalization. In Audiatur Vox Sapientiae: A Festschrift for Arnim von Stechow, Caroline Féry & Wolfgang Sternefeld (eds), 15–47. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Bayer, Josef. 2012. From modal particle to interrogative marker: A study of German denn. In Functional Heads, Laura Brugé, Anna Cardinaletti, Giuliana Giusti, Nicola Munaro & Cecilia Poletto (eds), 13–28. Oxford: OUP. DOI: 10.1093/acrof: oso/9780199746736.003.0001 Behaghel, Otto. 1932. Deutsche Syntax: Eine geschichtliche Darstellung, Vol. IV. Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universitätsbuchhandlung. Bellert, Irena. 1977. On semantic and distributional properties of sentential adverbs. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 337–350. Bhatt, Rajesh and Roumi Izvorski 1998). Genericity, implicit arguments and control. Paper presented at SCIL 7. Bierwisch, Manfred 1980). Semantic structure and illocutionary force. In John R. Searle (ed.) Speech act theory and pragmatics. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1–36.

Bierwisch, Manfred. 1966. Regeln für die Intonation deutscher Sätze. Untersuchungen über Akzent und Intonation im Deutschen: Studia Grammatica 7: 99–199. Bobaljik, Jonathan. 1995. Morphosyntax: The Syntax of Verbal Inflection. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Brandner, Ellen 2004). Head-movement in minimalism, and V2 and FORCE-marking. In Horst Lohnstein & Susanne Trissler (eds.) The syntax and semantics of the left periphery. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 313–341. Brandt, Margareta, Marga Reis, Inger Rosengren & Ilse Zimmermann 1992). Satztyp, Satzmodus, und Illokution. In Inger Rosengren (ed.) Satz und Illokution 1. Tu¨bingen: Niemeyer, 1–90. Büring, Daniel. 1995. The 59 th Street Bridge Accent. Ph.D. dissertation, Tübingen. (Published 1997, Routledge.)

Büring, Daniel & Hartmann, Katharina. 2001. The syntax and semantics of focus-sensitive particles in German. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 19: 229–281. Butulussi, Eleni 1991). Studien zur Valenz kognitiver Verben im Deutschen und Neugriechischen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Cardinaletti, Anna. 2011. German and Italian modal particles and clause structure. The Linguistic Review 28: 493–531. DOI: 10.1515/tlir.2011.014 Cardinaletti, Anna. This volume. Italian verb-based discourse particles in a comparative perspective. In Discourse-Oriented Syntax, Josef Bayer, Roland Hinterhölzl & Andreas Trotzke (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Carrilho, Ernestina. 2008. Beyond subject doubling: Expletive constructions in European Portuguese dialects. In Microvariation in Syntactic Doubling, Sjef Barbiers, Olaf Koeneman, Marika Lekakou & Margreet van der Ham (eds), 301–324. Bingley: Emerald. DOI: 10.1163/9781848550216_012 Caudal, Patrick & Nicolas, David. 2005. Types of degrees and types of event structures. In Event Arguments: Foundations and Applications, Claudia Maienborn & Angelika Wöllstein (eds), 277–300. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Oxford: OUP. Coleman, H.O. 1914. Intonation and emphasis. Miscellanea Phonetica 1: 6–26. Collins, C. & P. Postal 2015. Dispelling the cloud of unknowing. URL: http://ling.auf. net/ lingbuzz/002269. Coniglio, Marco. 2012. Die Syntax der deutschen Modalpartikeln: Ihre Distribution und Lizensierung in Haupt- und Nebensätzen. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. DOI: 10. 1524/9783050053578 Cruschina, Silvio. 2012. Discourse-related Features and Functional Projections. Oxford: OUP. Davies, Eirlys 1986). The English imperative. London: Croom Helm. Delfitto, Denis & Fiorin Gaetano 2014. Exclamatives: Issues of syntax, logical form, and interpretation. LINGUA 52: 1-20. den Dikken, Marcel & Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2002. From hell to polarity: ‘Aggressively non-D-linked’ wh-phrases as polarity items. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 31–61. DOI: 10.1162/002438902317382170 Doherty, Monika 1979). Wohl. In Untersuchungen zum Verha¨ltnis von Grammatik und Kommunikation (Linguistische Studien, Arbeitsberichte, 60). Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR, 101–141. DOI: 10.1023/A:1010653115493 Donhauser, Karin (1986). Der Imperativ im Deutschen: Studien zur Syntax und Semantik des deutschen Modussystems. Hamburg: Buske.

Eisenberg, Peter (1999). Grundriß der deutschen Grammatik, Band 2: Der Satz. Stuttgart, Weimar: Metzler. Ernst, Thomas. 2007. On the role of semantics in a theory of adverb syntax. Lingua 117: 1008–1033. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2005.03.015 Fabricius-Hansen, C. (1992). Subordination. In Ludger Ho¤mann (ed.) Deutsche Syntax. Ansichten und Aussichten. Berlin: de Gruyter, 458–483. Fanselow, Gisbert. 2002. Quirky subjects and other specifiers. In More Than Words, Ingrid Kaufmann & Barbara Stiebels (eds), 227–250. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Fanselow, Gisbert. 2003. Surprising specifiers and cyclic spellout. Generative Linguistics in Poland 5: 29–46. Frey, Werner. 2010. Ā-Movement and conventional implicatures: About the grammatical encoding of emphasis in German. Lingua 120: 1416–1435. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2008.09.016 Gallego, Ángel J. 2010. Phase Theory [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 152]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/la.152 Gärtner, Hans-Martin (2000). Are there V2 relative clauses in German? Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 3, 97–141. Gärtner, Hans-Martin (2002). On the force of V2 declaratives. Theoretical Linguistics 28, 33– 42. Georges Rebuschi & Laurice Tuller (eds), 55–82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/la.24.03bay Grewendorf, Günther and Dietmar Zaefferer (1991). Theorien der Satzmodi. In Arnim von Stechow & Dieter Wunderlich (eds.) Semantik; Semantics. Berlin: de Gruyter, 270–286. Groenendijk, Jeroen & Martin Stokhof (1982). Semantic analysis of WH-complements. Linguistics and Philosophy 5, 175–233. Groenendijk, Jeroen & Martin Stokhof (1997). Questions. In Johan van Benthem & Alice ter Meulen (eds.) Handbook of logicand language. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1055–1124. Gunlogson, Christine (2001). True to form: rising and falling declaratives as questions in English. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz. Gutzmann, Daniel & Turgay, Katharina. 2015. Expressive intensifiers and external degree modification. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 17: 185–228. DOI: 10.1007/s10828-014-9069-3 Hamblin, C. L. (1987). Imperatives. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Hamblin, C. L. Hamblin, C. L. Hamblin, C. L. (1973). Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language 10, 41–53. Han, Chung-hye (1998). The structure and interpretation of imperatives: mood and force in universal grammar. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Hartmann, Katharina. 2008. Focus and emphasis in tone and intonational languages. In The Discourse-Potential of Underspecified Structures, Anita Steube (ed.), 389–411. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Heim, Irene (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Heim, Irene (1983). On the projection problem of presuppositions. Proceedings of WCCFL 2. Stanford University. Heim, Irene 1983. On the Projection Problem for Presuppositions. In Flickinger, D.., et al., eds., Proceedings of the Second West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Heim, Irene (1992). Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs. Journal of Semantics 9, 183–221. Helbig, Gerhard & Fritz Kempter (1974). Die uneingeleiteten Nebensa¨tze im Deutschen und ihre Vermittlung im Fremdsprachenunterricht. Deutsch als Fremdsprache 11, 75–86.

Hinterhölzl, Roland & Munaro, Nicola (2015). On the interpretation of modal particles in non-assertive speech acts in German and Bellunese. In Josef Bayer, Roland Hinterhölzl & Andreas Trotzke (eds) Discourse-Oriented Syntax, 41-70. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hintikka, Jaakko (1974). Questions about questions. In Milton K. Munitz & Peter K. Unger (eds.) Semantics and philosophy. New York: N.Y.U. Press, 103–158. Hintikka, Jaakko (1975). Answers to questions. In Henry Hiz (ed.) Questions. Dordrecht: Reidel, 279–300. Hornstein, Norbert & Nunes, Jairo. 2014. Minimalism and control. In The Routledge Handbook of Syntax, Andrew Carnie, Yosuke Sato & Daniel Siddiqi (eds), 239–263. London: Routledge. Jacobs, Joachim. 1983. Fokus und Skalen: Zur Syntax und Semantik der Gradpartikeln im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Kamp, Hans (1981). A theory of truth and semantic interpretation. In Jeroen Groenendijk & et al. (eds.) Formal methods in the study of language. Amsterdam: Mathematical Center, 277–322. Kandybowicz, Jason. 2013. Ways of emphatic scope-taking: From emphatic assertion in Nupe to the grammar of emphasis. Lingua 128: 51–71. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2012.10.017 Karl Heinz Ramers, & Monika Schwarz (2003). On the form and interpretation of German wh-infinitives. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 15, 155–201. Karl Heinz Ramers, & Monika Schwarz (eds.) Sprache im Fokus. Festschrift fu¨ r Heinz Vater zum 65. Geburtstag. Tu¨bingen: Niemeyer, 121–144. Karttunen, Lauri (1973). Presuppositions of compound sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 4, 169– 193. Karttunen, Lauri (1977). Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1, 3– 44. Kennedy, Christopher & McNally, Louise. 2005. Scale structure, degree modification, and the semantics of gradable predicates. Language 81: 345–381. DOI: 10.1353/ lan.2005.0071 Kiefer, Ferenc. 1967. On Emphasis and Word Order in Hungarian. The Hague: Mouton. Kleemann-Krämer, Anja. 2010. On apparent NP-internal focus particles in German. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 13: 1–29. DOI: 10.1007/ s10828-009-9033-9 Klein, Wolfgang & Geyken, Alexander. 2010. Das Digitale Wörterbuch der Deutschen Sprache (DWDS). Lexicographica: International Annual for Lexicography 26: 79–96. Kratzer, Angelika. 2012. Modals and Conditionals: New and Revised Perspectives. Oxford: OUP. Krifka, Manfred (2001). Quantifying into question acts. Natural Language Semantics 9, 1–40. Krifka, Manfred 2010. How to interpret ‘expletive’ negation under bevor in German. In: T. Hanneforth & G. Fanselow (eds.) Language and logos: Studies in theoretical and computational linguistics, 214-236. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Lebeaux, David. 1991. Relative clauses, licensing, and the nature of the derivation. In Perspectives on Phrase Structure: Heads and Licensing, Susan Rothstein (ed.), 209–239. San Diego CA: Academic Press. Lohnstein, Horst (2000). Satzmodus-kompositionell. Zur Parametrisierung der Modusphrase im Deutschen. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Lohnstein, Horst & Ursula Bredel (2004). Inflectional morphology and sentence mood in German. In Horst Lohnstein & Susanne Trissler (eds.) The syntax and semantics of the left periphery. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 235–264. Lyons, John (1977). Semantics, Volume 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Manzini, M. Rita. This volume. Italian adverbs and discourse particles. In Discourse-Oriented Syntax, Josef Bayer, Roland Hinterhölzl & Andreas Trotzke (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

May, Robert. 1985. Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. McDaniel, Dana. 1986. Conditions on Wh-Chains. Ph.D. dissertation, CUNY. Meibauer, Jo¨rg (1989). Ob sie wohl kommt? Zum Satzmodus von selbsta¨ndigen Sätzen mit Endstellung des finiten Verbs. In Andrzej Katny (ed.) Studien zur kontrastiven Linguistik und literarischen U¨ bersetzung. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 11–33. Meibauer, Jörg. 1991. Existenzimplikaturen bei rhetorischen W-Fragen. In Fragen und Fragesätze, Marga Reis & Inger Rosengren (eds), 223–242. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI: 10.1515/9783111339795 Meibauer, Jörg. 1994. Modaler Kontrast und konzeptuelle Verschiebung: Studien zur Syntax und Semantik deutscher Modalpartikeln. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Meinunger, Andre´ (2004). Verb position, verbal mood and the anchoring (potential) of sentences. In Horst Lohnstein & Susanne Trissler (eds.) The syntax and semantics of the left periphery. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 313–341. Meyer, Marie-Christine & Sauerland, Uli. 2009. A pragmatic constraint on ambiguity detection. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 27: 139–150. DOI: 10.1007/ s11049-0089060-2 Müller, Stefan. 2002a. Complex Predicates: Verbal Complexes, Resultative Constructions, and Particle Verbs in German. Stanford CA: CSLI Publications. Müller, Stefan. 2002b. Syntax or morphology: German particle verbs revisited. In Verb-Particle Explorations, Nicole Dehé, Ray Jackendoff, Andrew McIntyre & Silke Urban (eds), 119–140. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Müller, Stefan. 2003. Mehrfache Vorfeldbesetzung. Deutsche Sprache 31: 29–62. Müller, Stefan. 2013. Datensammlung zur scheinbar mehrfachen Vorfeldbesetzung. Ms, FU Berlin. 〈http://hpsg.fu-berlin.de/~stefan/PS/mehr-vf-daten.pdf〉 Munaro, Nicola & Obenauer, Hans-Georg. 1999. On underspecified wh-elements in pseudointerrogatives. University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics 9: 181–253. Niebuhr, Oliver. 2010. On the phonetics of intensifying emphasis in German. Phonetica 67: 170–198. DOI: 10.1159/000321054 Nunes, Jairo. 1995. The Copy Theory of Movement and Linearization of Chains in the Minimalist Program. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland. Nunes, Jairo. 2004. Linearization of Chains and Sideward Movement. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Nunes, Jairo. 2012. Sideward movement: Triggers, timing, and outputs. In Ways of Structure Building, Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria & Vidal Valmala (eds), 114–142. Oxford: OUP. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199644933.003.0006 Obenauer, Hans-Georg. 2004. Nonstandard wh-questions and alternative checkers in Pagotto. In Horst Lohnstein & Susanne Trissler (eds) The Syntax and Semantics of the Left Periphery, 343–383. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. On the semantic motivation of syntactic verb movement to C 303 On the semantic motivation of syntactic verb movement to C 305 Oppenrieder, Wilhelm (1989). Selbständige Verb-letzt-Sätze: ihr Platz im Satzmodussystem und ihre intonatorische Kennzeichnung. In Hans Altmann, Anton Batliner & Wilhelm Oppenrieder (eds.) Zur Intonation von Modus und Fokus im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 163–244. Oppenrieder, Wilhelm (1991). Von Subjekten, Sätzen und Subjektsätzen. Untersuchungen zur Syntax des Deutschen.Tübingen: Niemeyer. Pasch, Renate (1982). Untersuchungen zu den Gebrauchsbedingungen der deutschen Kausalkonjunktionen da, denn, und weil. In Untersuchungen zu Funktionswörtern (Adverbien, Konjunktionen, Partikeln). (Linguistische Studien, Arbeitsberichte, 104). Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR, 41–243.

Penka, Doris & Arnim von Stechow (2001). Negative Indefinita unter Modalverben. In Reimar Müller & Marga Reis (eds.) Modalität und Modalverben im Deutschen. Hamburg: Helmut Buske, 263–286. Pesetsky, David. 1987. Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding. In The Representation of (In)Definiteness, Eric J. Reuland & Alice G. Ter Meulen (eds), 98–129. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Platzack, Christer & Inger Rosengren (1994). On the subject of imperatives. A minimalist account of the imperative pronoun and negated imperatives. Sprache und Pragmatik 34, 26– 67. Poletto, Cecilia & Zanuttini, Raffaella. 2013. Emphasis as reduplication: Evidence from sì che/no che sentences. Lingua 128: 124–141. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2012. 10.016 Postma, Gertjan 1996. The nature of quantification of high-degree: 'very', 'many', and the exclamative. Linguistics in the Netherland 1996. Potsdam, Eric (1998). Syntactic issues in the English imperative. New York and London: Garland Publishing. Potts, Christopher (2005). The logic of conversational implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. References from Truckenbrodt 2003: Rehbock, Helmut (1992). Deklarativsatzmodus, rhetische Modi und Illokutionen. In Inger Rosengren (ed.) Satz und Illokution, Band 1. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 91–171. Reis, Marga (1995). Über infinite Nominativkonstruktionen im Deutschen. In Olaf Önnerfors (ed.) Festvorträge anläßlich des 60. Geburtstags von Inger Rosengren (Sprache und Pragmatik Sonderheft). Lund, 114–156. Reis, Marga (1991). Was konstituiert w-Interrogativsätze? Deutsche Sprache 19, 213–238. Reis, Marga (1997). Zum syntaktischen Status unselbsta¨ndiger Verbzweit-Sa¨tze. In Christa Du¨ rscheid, Reis, Marga. 2005. On the syntax of so-called focus particles in German: A reply to Büring & Hartmann 2001. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 23: 459–483. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-004-0766-5 Rett, Jessica & Murray, Sarah E. 2013. A semantic account of mirative evidentials. Proceedings of SALT 23: 453–472. Rizzi, Luigi. 2014. Syntactic cartography and the syntacticisation of scope-discourse semantics. In Mind, Values, and Metaphysics, Anne Reboul (ed.), 517–533. Dordrecht: Springer. Roberts, Craige (1989). Modal subordination and pronominal anaphora in discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy 12, 683–721. Romberg, Jutta (1999). Verbzweitstellung in Komplementsa¨tzen. MA thesis, Technische Universität Berlin. Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: 75–116. DOI: 10.1007/BF02342617 Rosengren, Inger (1987). Begru¨ndungen und Folgerungen als kommunikative Handlungen. In Wolfgang Motsch (ed.) Satz, Text, sprachliche Handlung. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 179–197. Rosengren, Inger (1992a). Zur Grammatik und Pragmatik der Exklamation. In Inger Rosengren (ed.) Satz und Illokution 1. Tu¨bingen: Niemeyer, 263–306. Rosengren, Inger (1992b). Imperativsatz und ‘‘Wunschsatz’’–zu ihrer Grammatik und Pragmatik. In Inger Rosengren (ed.) Satz und Illokution 2. Tu¨bingen: Niemeyer, 1–48. Ross, John Robert (1970). On declarative sentences. In Roderick A. Jacobs & Peter S. Rosenbaum (eds.) Readings in English transformational grammar. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 222–277.

Sauerland, Uli & Heck, Fabian. 2003. LF-intervention effects in pied piping. In Proceedings of NELS 33, Makoto Kadowaki & Shigeto Kawahara (eds), 347–366. Amherst MA: GLSA. Schmerling, Susan (1982). How imperatives are special, and how they aren’t. In Robinson Schneider, Kevin Tuite & Robert Chametzky (eds.) Papers from the parasession on nondeclaratives. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 202–218. Searle, John R. (1975). A taxonomy of illocutionary acts. In Keith Gunderson (ed.) Language, mind, and knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. [Reprinted in: Searle (1979), Expression and Meaning. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1971–1929, and under the title ‘A classification of illocutionary acts’ in Language in Society 1975, 1976, 1971–1923]. Searle, John R. (2001). Modals and illocutionary forces. Reply to Zae¤erer. Revue Internationale de Philosophie 2/2001, 286–290. Stalnaker, Robert (1978). Assertion. In Peter Cole (ed.) Syntax and semantics 9: Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press. Stalnaker, Robert (1984). Inquiry. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Stalnaker, Robert (1988). Belief attribution and context. In R. Grimm & D. Merrill (eds.) Contents of thought. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 140–156. Stepanov, Arthur. 2001. Late adjunction and minimalist phrase structure. Syntax 4: 94–125. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9612.00038 Sternefeld, Wolfgang. 2006. Syntax: Eine morphologisch motivierte generative Beschreibung des Deutschen, 2 Vols. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. Stroik, Thomas S. 2009. Locality in Minimalist Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI: 10.7551/mitpress/9780262012928.001.0001 Thurmair, Maria (1989). Modalpartikeln und ihre Kombinationen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Thurmair, Maria. 1989. Modalpartikeln und ihre Kombinationen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI: 10.1515/9783111354569 Trotzke, Andreas & Turco, Giuseppina. In press. The grammatical reflexes of emphasis: New evidence from German wh-questions. Lingua. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua. 2015.09.003. Trotzke, Andreas & Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 2014. The complexity of narrow syntax: Minimalism, representational economy, and simplest Merge. In Measuring Grammatical Complexity, Frederick J. Newmeyer & Laurel B. Preston (eds), 128–147. Oxford: OUP. Trotzke, Andreas, Quaglia, Stefano & Wittenberg, Eva. In press. Topicalization in German particle verb constructions: The role of semantic transparency. Linguistische Berichte 244:409–426. Truckenbrodt, Hubert (2004a). Zur Strukturbedeutung von Interrogativsa¨tzen. Linguistische Berichte 199, 313–350. Truckenbrodt, Hubert (2004b). Sentence Type Meanings. Ms., University of Tu¨bingen. Umbach, Carla. 2004. On the notion of contrast in information structure and discourse structure. Journal of Semantics 21: 1–21. DOI: 10.1093/jos/21.2.155 Uriagereka, Juan. 1999. Multiple spell-out. In Working Minimalism, Samuel D. Epstein & Norbert Hornstein (eds), 109–135. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Uriagereka, Juan. 2011. Derivational cycles. In Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism, Cedric Boeckx (ed.), 239–259. Oxford: OUP. Van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen. 2005. Averbial modification under sluicing. In Ellipsis in Minimalism: Proceedings of the Seventh Seoul International Conference on Generative Grammar, Kiyong Choi & Changguk Yim (eds), 77–102. Seoul: Hankook. van der Sandt, Rob (1992). Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics 9, 333–377. Wechsler, Stephen (1991). Verb second and illocutionary force. In Katherine Le¤el & Denis Bouchard (eds.) Views on phrase structure. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 177–191.

Weerman, Fred (1989). The V2 conspiracy. Dordrecht: Foris. Weuster, Edith (1983). Nicht-eingebettete Satztypen mit Verb-Endstellung im Deutschen. In Klaus Olszok & Edith Weuster (eds.) Zur Wortstellungsproblematik im Deutschen. Tübingen: Narr, 7–87. Winkler, Edeltraud (1979). Selbsta¨ndig verwendete VE-Sa¨tze. Ein U¨ berblick. In Studien zum Satzmodus III (Linguistische Studien, Arbeitsberichte, 193). Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR, 118–158. Wratil, Melani (2000). Die Syntax des Imperativs. Linguistische Berichte 181, 71–118. Zae¤erer, Dietmar (1984). Frageausdru¨cke und Fragen im Deutschen. Mu¨nchen: Wilhelm Fink Verlag. Zae¤erer, Dietmar (2001). Deconstructing a classical classification: a typological look at Searle’s concept of illocution type. Revue Internationale de Philosophie 2/2001, 209–225 Zeller, Jochen. 2001. Particle Verbs and Local Domains [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 41]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/la.41 Zifonun, Gisela, Hoffmann, Ludger & Strecker, Bruno. 1997. Grammatik der deutschen Sprache, 3 Vols. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110872163 Zimmermann, Malte. 2008. Contrastive focus and emphasis. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55: 347–360. DOI: 10.1556/ALing.55.2008.3-4.9

References Delfitto & Fiorin 2014: References Abels, K., 2004. Why surprise-predicates do not embed polar interrogatives. Linguist. Arbeit. 81, 203--222. Bach, E., Jelinek, E., Kratzer, A., Partee, B.H., 1995. Quantification in Natural Languages. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. Benincà, P., 1995. Il tipo esclamativo. In: Renzi, L., Salvi, G., Cardinaletti, A. (Eds.), Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, vol. III. Il Mulino, Bologna, pp. 127-152. Benincà, P., 1996. La struttura della frase esclamativa alla luce del dialetto padovano. In: Benincà, P., Cinque, G., De Mauro, T., Vincent, N. (Eds.), Italiano e dialetti nel tempo. Saggi di grammatica per Giulio Lepschy, Bulzoni, Roma, pp. 23--43. Bennis, H., 1998. Exclamatives! In: van Bezoijen, R., Kager, R. (Eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. Bianchi, V., 1999. Consequences of Antisymmetry: Headed Relative Clauses. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. Bierwisch, M., 1989. The semantics of gradation. In: Bierwisch, M., Lang, E. (Eds.), Dimensional Adjectives. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 71--261. Cecchetto, C., Donati, C., 2010. On labeling: principle C and head movement. Syntax 13, 241--278. Chernilovskaya, A., 2010. Exclamatives have a question semantics! In: Presentation at the 6th International Symposium of Cognition, Logic and Communication Formal Semantics and Pragmatics: Discourse, Context, and Models, Riga, Latvia. Chierchia, G., 1995. Dynamics of Meaning. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago-London. Chomsky, N., 1995. The Minimalist Program. MIT Press, Cambridge. MA. Chomsky, N., 2000. Minimalist inquiries: the framework. In: Martin, R., Michaels, D., Uriagereka, J. (Eds.), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 89--156. Corver, N., 1990. The Syntax of Left-Branch Extractions (PhD dissertation). University of Tilburg. Corver, N., 2014. Lexical categories and (extended) projection. In: den Dikken, M. (Ed.), Handbook of Generative Syntax. CUP, Cambridge (submitted for publication). Cresswell, M.J., 1977. The semantics of degree. In: Partee, B. (Ed.), Montague Grammar. Academic Press, New York, pp. 261--292. D’Avis, F.-J., 2001. On the interpretation of wh-clauses in exclamative environments. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 23. Damonte, V., Fernández-Soriano, O., 2005. Features in Comp and syntactic variation. The case of dequeísmo in Spanish. Lingua 115.8, 1063-1082. Delfitto, D., Fiorin, G., 2014. Negation in exclamatives. Stud. Linguist. Donati, C., Cecchetto, C., 2011. Relabeling heads: a unified account for relativization structures. Linguist. Inq. 42.4, 519--560. Ginzburg, J., Sag, I.A., 2000. Interrogative Investigations. CSLI, Stanford, CA. Gutiérrez-Rexach, J., 1996. The semantics of exclamatives. In: Garrett, E., Lee, F. (Eds.), Syntax at Sunset. UCLA/WPL, Los Angeles, CA, pp. 146--162.

Hamblin, C.L., 1973. Questions in Montague English. Found. Lang. 10, 41--53. Heim, I., 1982. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases (Ph.D. dissertation). University of Massachusetts. Heim, I., 1985. Notes on comparatives and related matters (Unpublished ms.). University of Texas, Austin. Heim, I., 1994. Interrogative semantics and Karttunen’s semantics for know. In: Buchalla, R., Mittwoch, A. (Eds.), IATL 1. The Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Conference and the Workshop on Discourse of the Israel Association for Theoretical Linguistics. Academon, Jerusalem, pp. 128--144. Heim, I., 2000. Degree operators and scope. Semant. Linguist. Theory 10, 40--64. Kayne, R., 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Kennedy, C., 1997. Projecting the adjective: the syntax and semantics of gradability and comparison (PhD dissertation). University of California. Link, G., 1983. The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: a lattice-theoretical approach. In: Bäuerle, R., Schwarze, C., von Stechow, A. (Eds.), Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language. de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 303--323. Liptak, A., 2005. The Left-Periphery of Hungarian Exclamatives (Ms.). University of Leiden. Marandin, J.-M., 2008. The Exclamative Clause Type in French. CSLI Publications, Stanford. Merin, A., Nikolaeva, I., 2008. Exclamative as a Universal Speech Act Category (Ms.). SOAS London University and University of Konstanz. Munaro, N., 2006. Verbless Exclamatives Across Romance: Standard Expectations and Tentative Evaluations, vol. 16. University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics. Munaro, N., Obenauer, H.-G., 2003. On the semantic widening of underspecified wh-elements. In: Proceedings of the X-Coloquio de Gramatica generativa. Alcalá, Madrid. Ono, H., 2006. An Investigation of Exclamatives in English and Japanese: Syntax and Sentence Processing (PhD dissertation). Maryland. Portner, P., Zanuttini, R., 2005. Nominal exclamatives in English. In: Stainton, R., Elugardo, R. (Eds.), Ellipsis and Non-Sentential Speech. Kluwer, Dordrecht. Rett, J., 2011. Exclamatives, degrees and speech acts. Linguist. Philos. 34, 411--442. Reuland, E., 2011. Anaphora and Language Design. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.